Advisory Committee for the Zambia Decent Work Country ProgrammeILO Office for Malawi, Mozambique and ZambiaILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP)

Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia Report of the Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Z-DWCP

Siavonga, 25 and 26 January 2010

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP)

Monitoring and assessing progress towards decent work is a long-standing concern for the ILO and its constituents. Implemented by the ILO with funding from the European Union, the project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP) helps to address this need. Over a period of four years (2009 to 2013), the project works with Ministries of Labour, National Statistical Offices, other Government agencies, Workers’ and Employers’ organisations and research institutions to strengthen the capacity of developing and transition countries to self-monitor and self-assess progress towards decent work. The project facilitates the identification of Decent Work Indicators in line with national priorities; supports data collection; and assists in the analysis of data on decent work in order to make them relevant for policy makers. The MAP publication series disseminates project outputs to a broad audience in the ten countries covered by the project and beyond.

For more information on the ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP) see http://www.ilo.org/map

Republic of Zambia

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE ZAMBIA DECENT WORK COUNTRY PROGRAMME ILO OFFICE FOR MALAWI , MOZAMBIQUE AND ZAMBIA

ILO/EC PROJECT “M ONITORING AND ASSESSING PROGRESS ON DECENT WORK” (MAP)

Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia

Report of the Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Z-DWCP

Siavonga, 25 and 26 January 2010

This document has been prepared by the International Labour Office with funding from the European Union under the ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP).

International Labour Office Lusaka and Geneva

March 2010

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2010 Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to the Publications Bureau (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.

Libraries, institutions and other users registered in the United Kingdom with the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP [Fax: (+44) (0)20 7631 5500; email: cla@cla.co.uk], in the United States with the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 [Fax: (+1) (978) 750 4470; email: info@copyright.com] or in other countries with associated Reproduction Rights Organizations, may make photocopies in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data Monitoring and assessing progress on decent work in Zambia: report of the special session of the Advisory Committee for the Z-DWCP, Siavonga, 25 and 26 January 2010 / International Labour Office; Advisory Committee for the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme; ILO Office for Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia, ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP). – Lusaka and Geneva: ILO, 2010 1 v. ISBN: 978-92-2-123344-2 (print); 978-92-2-123345-9 (web pdf) International Labour Office; Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Z-DWCP (2010, Siavonga, Zambia). decent work / data collecting / labour market information system / role of ILO / Zambia 13.01.1

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.

The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them.

Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval.

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many countries, or direct from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists of new publications are available free of charge from the above address, or by email: pubvente@ilo.org

Visit our website: www.ilo.org/publns

Printed by the International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland

iii

Foreword

Since the promulgation of the Decent Work concept in 1999, the International Labour Office (ILO) has worked tirelessly to come up with an agreed set of statistical indicators to measure decent work. Following the adoption of the Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization by the International Labour Conference in June 2008, which recommends the monitoring of the Decent Work Agenda, the ILO in 2008 convened a Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work. It proposed a set of Decent Work Indicators (DWIs) that cover the four strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda namely, employment, social protection, social dialogue and tripartism, and fundamental principles and rights at work.

The Zambian Government, together with social partners and with the ILO’s support, put in place a Decent Work Country Programme that focuses on employment creation for the youths, women and persons with disabilities, elimination of child labour, and fighting HIV/AIDS at the work place. To guide the implementation of this programme, a tripartite-plus advisory committee was established.

The objective of the special session of the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme (Z-DWCP) Advisory Committee, held from 25-26 January 2010 at Manchinchi Bay Lodge in Siavonga, was to familiarize the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee with the proposed ILO set of Decent Work Indicators and identify a core set that would be used by the committee to monitor and evaluate progress on decent work in Zambia. The session culminated into the selection of twelve core indicators as well as reaching consensus on priority areas for collaboration with ILO through the ILO/European Commission (EC) Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP). These areas include data analysis training, statistics on workers with disabilities, improving collection and analysis of wage statistics, and drafting of a Decent Work Country Profile for Zambia.

The Zambian Government has reached an advanced stage in the development of the Sixth National Development Plan (SNDP 2011-2015) which is a successor Plan to the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP 2006-2010). The holding of the special session of the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee and adoption of a core set of Decent Work Indicators is therefore a great milestone as these indicators will form part of the SNDP monitoring and evaluation framework. Indeed, this demonstrates the commitment of the Government and social partners to achieving decent work, and underscores the importance of reliable statistics to monitor results.

The special session of the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee was organized through collabo-rative effort and financial contributions of the Zambian Government, ILO Lusaka office and the ILO/EC MAP project. I wish to express thanks and appreciation to all who made this special session a success. Thanks to Mr. Gerry Finnegan, ILO Representative for Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia, Mr. Malte Luebker, ILO/EC MAP project based in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Tite Habiyakare, ILO Labour Statistician based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Mr. Griffin Nyirongo, the ILO Consultant on the ILO/EC MAP project who also compiled this report.

Dr. Winnie Sithole-Mwenda Permanent Secretary Ministry of Labour and Social Security

March 2010

iv

Contents

Page

1. Opening session .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Objective Setting by Mr. Owen Mgemezulu, Chief Planner in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Remarks by Mr. Gerry Finnegan, ILO Representative for Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3. Remarks by Dr Winnie Sithole Mwenda, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Social Security ............................................................................................................... 3

1.4. Remarks by Mr. Mtumbi Goma, Trustee, Zambia Congress of Trade Unions..................... 3

1.5. Remarks by Mr. John Banda, Research Manager, Zambia Federation of Employers .......... 3

2. Overview of the ILO’s framework for measuring decent work...................................................... 4

2.1. Context and cenceptual issues .............................................................................................. 4

2.2. Decent Work Indicators ........................................................................................................ 5

2.3. Plenary discussion................................................................................................................. 6

3. Findings of the technical seminar on “Strengthening labour market information to monitor progress on decent work in Africa” (20-24 July 2009, Addis Ababa)............................................ 7

3.1. Presentation........................................................................................................................... 7

3.2. Plenary discussion................................................................................................................. 8

4. Working groups on the relevance of monitoring and assessing progress on decent work for Zambia ............................................................................................................................................ 8

4.1. Benefits and potential uses ................................................................................................... 9

4.2. Challenges and pitfalls........................................................................................................ 10

5. Current indicator availability and links to the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme.......... 11

5.1. Presentation......................................................................................................................... 11

5.2. Plenary discussion............................................................................................................... 13

6. Working groups on thematic areas................................................................................................ 13

6.1. Employment opportunities.................................................................................................. 13

6.2. Adequate earnings and productive work............................................................................. 15

6.3. Decent hours ....................................................................................................................... 16

6.4. Combining work, family and personal life ......................................................................... 16

6.5. Work that should be abolished............................................................................................ 17

6.6. Stability and security of work............................................................................................. 18

6.7. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment................................................................ 19

6.8. Safe work environment....................................................................................................... 20

6.9. Social security..................................................................................................................... 21

v

6.10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation .................................................. 22

7. Priorities for the national monitoring framework: which short set of indicators should be promoted?...................................................................................................................................... 22

7.1. Data sources and availability .............................................................................................. 23

7.2. Short set of indicators for national monitoring................................................................... 28

8. Looking ahead: Collaboration between Zambia and the ILO under the ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work (MAP)”................................................... 30

9. Closing ceremony ......................................................................................................................... 31

Annex I. List of participants.................................................................................................................... 32

Annex II. Programme.............................................................................................................................. 34

Annex III. Overview of the ILO’s Framework for Measuring Decent Work (presentation) .................. 36

Annex IV. Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia (presentation)...................42

vi

Tables and figures

Page

Table 1. Benefits and potential uses of measuring decent work in Zambia........................................... 9

Table 2. Challenges and pitfalls of measuring decent work in Zambia ............................................... 10

Table 3. Main sources of data to measure decent work ....................................................................... 23

Table 4. Full list of Decent Work Indicators that are relevant for Zambia, data sources and data availability (for use in a Decent Work Country Profile and other purposes)......................... 26

Table 5. List of Priority Decent Work Indicators for National Monitoring Purposes.......................... 29

vii

List of acronyms and abbreviations

ACP Africa, Caribbean and Pacific

BBW & JC Broad-based Wealth and Job Creation

BDS Business Development Service

CSO Central Statistical Office

CL Child Labour

CEEC Citizens Economic Empowerment Commission

CPI Consumer Price Index

DFID Department for International Development

EMIS Education Management Information System

EL-SAG Employment and Labour Sector Advisory Group

EC European Communities

EU European Union

FFTUZ Federation of Free Trade Unions on Zambia

FNDP Fifth National Development Plan

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Countries

ILO International Labour Office

IOM International Organisation for Migration

INCLUDE Project Promoting Decent Work for People with Disabilities through a Disability Inclusion Support Service

IPEC International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour

ISIC International Standard Industrial Classification

JASZ Joint Assistance Strategy for Zambia

LFS Labour Force Survey

LMIS Labour Market Information Systems

LCMS Living Conditions Monitoring Surveys

MSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MCDSS Ministry of Community Development and Social Services

MOE Ministry of Education

MLSS Ministry of Labour and Social Security

MoFNP Ministry of Finance and National Planning

MOV Means of Verification

NAS National Accounts Statistics

NAP National Action Plan

NELMP National Employment and Labour Market Policy

OSHS Occupational Safety and Health Services

PEPDEL Project on Promoting the Employability and Employment of Persons with Disabilities

PS Priority Surveys

PSD Private Sector Development

PPES Probability Proportional to Estimated Size

PWD Persons with disabilities

RBSA Regular Budget Supplementary Account

SAG Sector Advisory Group

1

1. Opening session

The Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme: Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia commenced with all participants introducing themselves. The list of participants to the Special Session of the Advisory Committee can be found in Annex I.

1.1. Objective setting by Mr. Owen Mgemezulu, Chief Planner in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security

In presenting the objective setting, Mr. Mgemezulu noted that the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008) endorses the Decent Work Agenda as a main objective of the ILO’s work. This endorsement places high priority on monitoring and assessing progress on decent work. The aim of the workshop was to introduce the full range of Decent Work Indicators from which the Advisory Committee would select core indicators to monitor decent work in Zambia.

1.2. Remarks by Mr. Gerry Finnegan, ILO Representat ive for Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia

In welcoming participants to the Special Session of the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme (Z-DWCP) Advisory Committee, Mr. Finnegan pointed out that the workshop provided a great start to 2010 in terms of giving a clear focus to decent work as a key element for poverty reduction and national development. Decent work has been defined by the ILO as productive work for women and men in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity. Decent Work involves opportunities for work that is productive and delivers a fair income; provides security in the workplace and social protection for workers and their families; offers better prospects for personal development and encourages social integration; gives people the freedom to express their concerns, to organize and to participate in decisions that affect their lives; and guarantees equal opportunities and equal treatment for all.

Monitoring and assessing progress towards decent work was therefore a long-standing concern for the ILO and its constituents – the Governments and Employers’ and Workers’ organizations that make up the ILO. Mr. Finnegan noted that countries and constituents alike have repeatedly called for the ILO to support their efforts to monitor and assess progress towards decent work. The 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization provides scope for ILO assistance to member States that may consider “the establishment of appropriate indicators or statistics, if necessary with the assistance of the ILO, to monitor and evaluate the progress made”.

Mr. Finnegan highlighted Zambia’s commitment to decent work through active partici-pation at various fora at which decent work featured prominently. At the ILO Governing Body, of which Zambia is a member, the Zambian delegation spoke in favour of measuring decent work. At the regional meeting Strengthening labour market information to monitor progress on Decent Work in Africa, held in Addis Ababa in July 2009, Zambia was well represented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MLSS) and the Central Statis-tical Office (CSO).

In Zambia, the ILO has been providing support to Zambia and the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee. During the course of the subsequent LMI training, the ILO would supply 14 personal computers to the Ministry of Labour, the CSO, and Employers’ and Workers’

2

organizations in the country to enable them to gather much-needed information on the Zambian labour market. The ILO also works closely with its tripartite partners and in close cooperation with other United Nations (UN) agencies in delivering as “One UN” in Zambia.

The ILO Director thanked the European Union for the generous support given through the ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP) that made it possible to host the Special Session of the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee. He informed the workshop that due to illness, the representative of European Union (EU) was unable to attend the opening session.

The ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP), which runs from 2009 to 2012, aims to identify the relevant indicators for decent work for Zambia. From 2009, the project has been working with the MLSS, the Central Statistical Office (CSO), Workers’ and Employers’ organizations, civil society organizations, and research institutions – all of whom were participating in the workshop. Mr. Finnegan noted that the MAP project would strengthen the capacity of the ILO’s partner organizations in Zambia to self-monitor and self-assess progress towards decent work in a coherent, practi-cal and implementable manner. The EU-funded MAP project will facilitate the develop-ment of indicators that are relevant for Zambia, support data collection, such as through the Labour Force Survey, and use the collected data to promote an integrated policy analysis based on decent work, to make these indicators relevant for policy-making.

The ILO Director emphasized the importance of the Decent Work Indicators in contrib-uting to Zambia achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with particular reference to MDG 1 and 3 on poverty reduction and gender equality, respectively. With the great strides that Zambia has taken in being among the first African countries to launch its own Decent Work Country Programme in December 2007, and later develop its Monitor-ing and Evaluation and Implementation Plan Framework, Mr. Finnegan was confident that consensus in drawing up Zambia’s Decent Work Indicators should be easily achieved over the 2-day period of the workshop.

Much of the information required for many of the Decent Work Indicators for Zambia is already captured in some form or other in the various sources of labour market information (LMI), such as the Labour Force Survey (LFS). However, the LMI system in Zambia remains under-utilized due to resource gaps and weaknesses, and more data disaggregation needs to be done. The ILO Director stressed the need for timely and up-to-date statistics.

Mr. Finnegan informed the workshop that the ILO had the privilege of presenting evidence to the Parliamentary Committee concerning unemployment. The ILO presentation, among others, reflected the problems and difficulties in knowing and measuring levels of unemployment and underemployment in Zambia – and this work towards developing Decent Work Indicators will contribute further towards answering these questions in the near future. One proposal that was made to the Parliamentary Committee was the desig-nation of a number of sectors – such as mining and tourism – as “pilot decent work sectors”, within which decent work principles can be applied.

The two-day working session of the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee would make a valu-able contribution to a Decent Work Country Profile for Zambia, as envisaged for the near future. In conclusion, the ILO Director thanked the Advisory Committee for its commit-ment and dedication in supporting Z-DWCP implementation and providing oversight and technical inputs into the country programme. He also thanked all those who were involved in the background preparatory work in organizing the workshop, particularly the Ministry of Labour and Social Security Chief Planner, Owen Mgemezulu and his team, in ILO Lusaka Office (Belinda Chanda, Johanna Silvander, Griffin Nyirongo, Cheelo Kopakopa and Milensu Kapaipi) and Malte Luebker and Tite Habiyakare, from ILO Geneva and ILO

3

Addis Ababa respectively, for agreeing to come and support these important efforts in Zambia.

1.3. Remarks by Dr. Winnie Sithole Mwenda, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Social Security

The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Dr. Winnie Sithole Mwenda was pleased to note that all the tripartite partners were in attendance at the workshop whose aim was to select the core indicators to monitor decent work in Zambia. Milestones had been achieved in the implementation of the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme. In August 2009, the Advisory Committee was constituted and the monitoring and evaluation and implementation plan was developed. A consultant has been engaged and is currently working on a resource mobilization strategy to help the resource gap for implementing the Z-DWCP. The Permanent Secretary pledged her full support to the Z-DWCP. The identified core indicators would be used in monitoring decent work the Sixth National Development Plan that is currently being developed.

Dr. Mwenda bemoaned the delay in the completion of the 2008 Labour Force Survey. Since she assumed the office of Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, just over a year ago, assurances had been made that the labour force survey report would be completed, but this was not the case. She could not understand why data analysis had taken this long.

The Permanent Secretary called for the commitment and full participation of stakeholders in the implementation of Zambia’s labour and employment programmes. As one of the ways of getting stakeholders more involved, Dr. Mwenda had directed in her capacity as Chairperson of the Employment Sector Advisory Group (EL-SAG), that all sub-committees of the EL-SAG would be chaired by persons from the stakeholders and not official of the ministry.

In her concluding remarks, the Permanent Secretary thanked the members of the Advisory Committee for taking time off their busy schedule to attend the special session, which was a demonstration of their commitment to the Z-DWCP. She also thanked the ILO for providing support to Zambia and the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee and for the donation of 14 personal computers to the Ministry of Labour, the CSO, and Employers’ and Workers’ organizations. The donation would go a long way in helping the country to gather much-needed information on the labour market.

1.4. Remarks by Mr. Mtumbi Goma, Trustee, Zambia Congress of Trade Unions

Mr. Goma noted that the workshop had come at an appropriate time and monitoring was cardinal in measuring success or failure. Mr. Goma ended his brief remarks with an adage, ‘if you can’t measure it, you cannot talk about it’.

1.5. Remarks by Mr. John Banda, Research Manager, Zambia Federation of Employers

Mr. Banda emphasized the importance of monitoring as it helps one differentiate between success and failure. The absence of monitoring may lead to failure being rewarded because one cannot differentiate success from failure. The importance of monitoring decent work stems from the contribution that decent work makes to productivity. Decent work also

4

contributes to the MDG 1 on reducing poverty and MDG 3 on gender equality. Further-more, Mr. Banda noted that HIV and AIDS posed a threat to decent work, hence the need to put measures in place to mitigate the negative impact of HIV and AIDS. The Zambia Federation of Employers had taken the issue of decent work seriously to the extent that last year’s employer of the year award was judged on the commitment to workplace HIV and AIDS programmes.

2. Overview of the ILO’s framework for measuring decent work

The presentation on the overview of the ILO’s framework for measuring decent work was divided into two parts and shared between Malte Luebker, Chief Technical Advisor, MAP Project, and Tite Habiyakare, Specialist on Labour Statistics, SRO Addis Ababa

2.1. Context and cenceptual issues

In his presentation, Mr. Luebker gave the background to the evolution of the Decent Work Agenda noting that decent work was the ILO’s main objective. The ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008) endorses the Decent Work Agenda as the main objective of the ILO’s work. The strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda are: (i) fundamental principles and rights at work, (ii) promoting employment; (iii) social protection; (iv) social dialogue and tripartism (see also Annex III).

The ILO has worked on measurement of decent work since 2000. Mr. Luebker noted that ILO Governing Body discussions have set the basic principles for measurement of decent work. The purpose is (i) to assist constituents to assess progress towards decent work, and (ii) to offer comparable information for analysis and policy development. The Governing Body ruled any form of ranking of countries or development of a composite index and mandated a Tripartite Meeting of Experts to provide guidance on options for measuring decent work. In September 2008, the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work reviewed the list of statistical indicators and recommended the need to provide systematic information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work in a manner consistent with the ILO supervisory system.

Mr. Luebker highlighted the measurement of decent work in relation to rights at work and gender. He noted that the number of ratifications and complaints was an inadequate proxy for actual application of labour standards. With regard to gender as a crosscutting concern of the Decent Work Agenda, gender should not be treated in isolation, but measurement should inform about women’s and men’s access to decent work across all substantive elements. Mr. Luebker explained the different types of indicators to measure decent work as follows:

i. Main indicators (M): parsimonious core set of indicators to monitor progress towards decent work.

ii. Additional indicators (A): to be used where appropriate, and where data are available.

iii. Context indicators (C): provide information on the economic and social context for decent work.

iv. Future indicators (F): currently not feasible, but to be included as data become more widely available.

v. Information included under legal framework (L).

The presentation acknowledged the complementarities between Decent Work Indicators and MDG indicators. In this regard, Decent Work Indicators can complement MDG indi-

5

cators for monitoring progress on decent work and implementation of Decent Work Country Programmes at the national level. Decent Work Indicators can be grouped under ten substantive elements of decent work, each of which would be treated by a separate working group during the Special Session of the Advisory Committee. These elements related to the four strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda. For example, ‘Adequate earnings and productive work’ relates to both employment and social security; ‘Employment opportunities’ cuts across rights at work and employment. ‘Stability and security of work’ cuts across rights, employment and social security.

Recognizing the need to explain the Decent Work Indicators, the ILO plans to publish a quick reference manual with definitions and interpretation guidance for Decent Work Indicators. Interpretation is sometimes easy, e.g. the lower the incidence of child labour or fatal occupational injuries, the better. Interpretation is sometimes difficult, e.g. higher employment-to-population ratio or a lower unemployment rate need not always signal progress. Having more than one indicator can corroborate findings.

Tripartite constituents can use Decent Work Indicators to monitor and assess progress on decent work and National Development Plans at the national level. The indicators also offer opportunities to compare progress against other countries and to draw policy lessons. Mr. Luebker was hopeful that Decent Work Indicators for Zambia would prove to be a useful tool for constituents in Zambia. He concluded his presentation by noting that his presentations and those to follow would help identify priority Decent Work Indicators for Zambia. In the long-run, countries could develop Decent Work Country Profiles, a process that had started with pilot countries from different regions (Austria, Brazil, Tanzania and Ukraine). Pending successful completion of the pilot phase, the aim is to compile a comprehensive set of country profiles by 2015.

2.2. Decent Work Indicators

Mr. Tite Habiyakare, Specialist in Labour Statistics at the ILO Sub-Regional Office in Addis Ababa, presented the second part of the overview of the ILO’s framework for meas-uring decent work. The presentation introduced the main indicators under the ten substan-tive elements of decent work and outlined sources and repositories of the information. The detailed indicators under the different substantive elements of decent work are presented in Annex III.

On the element of decent work related to ‘Employment opportunities’, Mr. Habiyakare presented four main indicators as recommended by the Tripartite Meeting of Experts: the employment-to-population ratio, the unemployment rate, the share of youth not in edu-cation and not in employment, and informal employment. The first three indicators are defined according to the Resolution by the 13th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (1982) on Economically Active Population (see more details in Annex III). Informal employment was defined by the 17th International Conference of Labour Statisti-cians (2003). Youth not in education and not in employment is the most recent indicator among the four, and is defined as the sum of unemployed youth (15-24 years) and youth economically inactive for reasons other than education and training, as per cent of the total youth population.

Two main indicators were presented within the decent work element of ‘Adequate earnings and productive work’: the working poor, i.e. the proportion of workers who – despite having a job – live in a poor household (according to international or national poverty lines), and the low pay rate, which is the percentage of all employed persons with hourly earnings less than 2/3 of median or average hourly earnings of full-time workers.

On the decent work element of ‘Decent hours’, Mr. Habiyakare indicated that one main indicator has been suggested by the Tripartite Meeting of Experts, namely excessive hours.

6

The measurement of working time has recently been defined by the 18th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (2008) and the threshold of 48 hours (usual hours) is in line with the maximum number of hours allowed under the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1). One main indicator has also been proposed for the decent work element on ‘Work that should be abolished’: Child labour. The definition was recently updated by a Resolution on Child Labour Statistics of the same 18th International Confer-ence of Labour Statisticians (2008). On the element of ‘Stability and security of work’, the main indicator is the proportion of those employed in precarious types of work (i.e. casual, seasonal and temporary workers as a percentage of currently employed population aged 15 years and above).

One important element of the Decent Work Agenda is ‘Equal opportunities and equal treatment in employment’ for all workers. Two main indicators have so far been proposed by the Tripartite Meeting of Experts: Occupational segregation by sex, measured by the index of dissimilarity by sex, and the female share of employment in ISCO-88 groups 11 (legislators and senior officials of public administration) and 12 (corporate managers in the private sector) as a percentage of all employed persons in these groups. Another key indicator on equal opportunities, although still considered as an additional indicator in this framework, is the share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector. This is important as it is also an indicator of MDG Goal 3, Target 3A.

The decent work element on ‘Safe work environment’ has one main indicator of occupa-tional injury rate (fatal), defined by the Resolution concerning occupational injuries by the 16th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (1998). The decent work element of ‘Social security’ has two main indicators, the share of population aged 65 and above bene-fiting from pension as a percentage of total population of the same age group, and public social security expenditures as a percentage of GDP (ref. Resolution on social security statistics by the 9th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, 1957).

An essential element of decent work is “Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation”. Three main indicators have been proposed by the Tripartite Meeting of Experts: union density rate, enterprises belonging to employers’ organisations, and the collective bargaining rate. The adjusted union density rate is the proportion of unions’ membership (minus the retired, students and unemployed) in total wage and salaried employment (minus groups not eligible for unionisation such as armed forces in many countries). The adjusted collective bargaining coverage rate in the proportion of employees covered by collective bargaining agreement, as percentage of those employees potentially subject to collective bargaining agreements.

In his conclusion Mr. Habiyakare informed the workshop participants that for some substantive elements of decent work such as ‘Combining work, family and personal life’, or some aspects of social dialogue (such as on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, e.g. freedom of association and collective bargaining in line with ILO Conventions C.87 and C.98), there were currently no statistical indicator that could provide a satisfactory measure of that element. These indicators are still in the process of being developed by the ILO. Mr. Habiyakare indicated that additional inputs from constituents and social partners on this process of indicators developments are welcome.

2.3. Plenary discussion

Participants noted that the decision not to rank countries or to develop an index meant that progress of decent work would not be easily comparable between countries. Some partici-pants argued that an index would allow for comparisons between countries and that rank-ing would also give countries the impetus to work towards improving their position on the decent work rankings. Decent work would, therefore, be given the due attention. It was

7

pointed out that disparities in the levels of development made indexing difficult, and that constructing an index would necessitate a discussion on the relative weight to be given to different aspects of decent work. This was in contradiction to the notion that all four strategic objectives were mutually reinforcing, and that lack of progress in one area (e.g. freedom of association) could not be compensated through progress in another (e.g. wages). The decision to exclude any form of ranking of countries or development of a composite index had been taken at the political level.

Participants also argued that there was a correlation between economic growth and attain-ment of decent work. This is aptly demonstrated in the reasons advanced for the failure to attain higher GDP growth in 2005. The 2006 budget attributed the reduced growth in the GDP to industrial disputes and accidents. Promotion of decent jobs would reduce industrial disputes and occupational injury rate. Monitoring decent work would therefore, contribute to improving employment conditions.

Concern was raised on whether decent work can be achieved in the armed forces and the police in the absence of union representation. In Zambia, the armed forces and the police do not have union representation, as was the case in South Africa. It was pointed out that the Industrial Relations Act exempts the armed forces and police from the right to form unions. There is, however, a provision in the law that allows the employees in the armed forces and police to make representation to the Minister to form a union. There had been no such representation to date.

3. Findings of the technical seminar on “Strengthening labour market information to monitor progress on decent work in Africa” (20-24 July 2009, Addis Ababa)

3.1. Presentation

In July 2009, Mr. Owen Mgemezulu, Chief Planner of the MLSS, and Mr. Gerson Banda, Statistician at the Central Statistical Office, had attended the regional meeting on “Strengthening Labour Market Information to Monitor Progress on Decent Work in Africa” as Zambia’s representatives. Mr. Mgemezulu presented the findings of the techni-cal seminar and gave a background of measures to strengthen Labour Market Information (LMI). The 2004 African Union (AU) Extraordinary Summit of Heads of State and Government on Employment and Poverty Alleviation in Africa (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso) had adopted the Ouagadougou Declaration, calling for the strengthening of labour market data collection and analysis.

The 11th ILO African Regional meeting (Addis Ababa, 2007) adopted the Decent Work Agenda in Africa 2007-2015, which set a target to ensure that at least half of the African Member States have mechanisms in place by 2010 to produce labour market information and statistics for monitoring of progress of the core dimensions of the Decent Work Agenda. These were reinforced by the adoption by the 97th International Labour Conference (ILC), of the Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008), which among other things, calls on ILO member States to consider the establishment of appropriate indicators or statistics to monitor and evaluate the progress made in the imple-mentation of the Decent Work Agenda.

The objective of the Addis Ababa Regional Seminar was to support country analysis in order to ensure that employment and decent work feature prominently in country’s reports on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and is based on country-level data

8

contextual analysis. The meeting was attended by 13 anglophone countries and participants were drawn from national statistical bureaus, universities, ministries of labour and economic planning. The participating countries were Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tanzania (mainland and Zanzibar), Uganda and Zambia.

The regional meeting was presented with a full set of DWIs developed by the ILO for discussion. The MDGs Employment Indicators, which are a sub-set of the larger set of DWIs, were also introduced. The MDG Employment Indicators were developed following a decision by the UN in 2007 to expand the MDGs to include a new target “Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people”.

The Decent Work Indicators introduced included informal employment; youth unemploy-ment; vulnerable employment rate; share of wage employment in non-agricultural employment; working poverty rate; minimum wage as a percentage of medium wage; excessive hours of work; child labour indicators; gender wage gap; share of population aged 65 years and above benefiting from a pension; labour productivity. The meeting observed that Labour Market Information Systems (LMIS) were weak in the majority of African countries and few countries had so far been computing the MDG Indicators. An exception was Tanzania (mainland) that has attempted to do so.

In conclusion, Mr. Mgemezulu noted that there was too much emphasis placed on growth and poverty but little attention to the labour market. There was need for the ILO to consider assisting in development of a harmonized LMIS to enable comparability among African states.

3.2. Plenary discussion

The plenary discussion proposed that the presentation should incorporate the Global Jobs Pact in the background section. The Global Jobs Pact (GJP) is an ILO package of measures designed to guide national and international policies aimed at stimulating economic recovery, generating jobs and providing protection to working people and their families. The GJP was adopted by the International Labour Conference in 2009 in the midst of the global financial crisis and the concomitant prospect of prolonged global increase in unemployment, poverty and inequality.

4. Working groups on the relevance of monitoring and assessing progress on decent work for Zambia

The participants discussed the relevance of monitoring and assessing progress on decent work for Zambia. The participants, who were divided into three groups, focused their discussions on the two following questions:

1. Why should Zambia monitor and assess progress on decent work, what are the benefits and potential uses?

2. What are the challenges and potential pitfalls?

Following the deliberations in the groups, the groups reported to the plenary and the participants rated the benefits and challenges according to which benefits and challenges were most important.

9

4.1. Benefits and potential uses

The participants rated the use of Decent Work Indicators for informed policy-making as the most important benefit of measuring decent work in Zambia. This requires availability of information. The decision-making process feeds into the policy formulation, review and evaluation of the development frameworks like the Sixth National Development Plan (SNDP) or the National Employment and Labour Market Policy (NELMP). On second place, monitoring decent work will enable the country measure progress towards decent work and help identify areas of weakness in attaining decent work. This will help to modify the Z-DWCP implementation plan according to prevailing circumstances and acts as a control measure.

The participants were of the view that monitoring and assessing progress on decent work would stimulate efforts to achieve decent work and attain full and productive employment for all (ranked third). Through monitoring and assessing, countries can make comparisons with others. The need to monitor and assess decent work progress will help strengthen and streamline the LMIS and identify opportunities for resource mobilization and advocacy. The participants rated an additional benefit of monitoring and assessing progress as its contribution to identifying new priorities in the next Z-DWCP. Table 1 summarizes the workshop’s rating of the benefits and potential uses of measuring decent work in Zambia.

Table 1. Benefits and potential uses of measuring decent work in Zambia

Rank Votes Benefits and potential uses of measuring decent work in Zambia

1. 25 votes

Use of DWIs for informed policy-making

• Informed policy decision-making

• Improved availability of information

• Feed into the policy formulation/review/evaluation of the existing development frameworks (e.g. SNDP, NELMP)

• Monitor progress towards attainment of MDGs (e.g. MDG 1 & 3)

• Inform policy-makers

• Will help to modify implementation plan according to prevailing circumstances

2. 19 votes

Identify progress and weaknesses in achieving decent work

• Will show us areas of weakness in attaining decent work

• It will help us to know where we are

• To measure progress

• Control measure

• Measure progress towards decent work

3. 13 votes

Achievement of productive employment and decent work

• Movement towards full and productive employment for all

• Will help us achieve decent work

4. 8 votes

Benchmarking & decision making

• Benchmarking internally and externally

• Decision-making

5. 7 votes

Improve LMIS

• Strengthen and streamline LMIS

• Opportunities for resource mobilization/ advocacy

6. 3 votes

Evaluate Z-DWCP

• Assist in the evaluation of the Z-DWCP (2007) and help in the identification of new priorities in the next DWCP.

Source: Advisory Committee of the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme.

10

4.2. Challenges and pitfalls

The participants identified a number of challenges that were likely to affect monitoring and assessing progress on decent work. As with the benefits, the challenges were rated in terms of their importance. Limited data availability and resource constraints were considered as the most important impediment to monitoring decent work. The resources included financial and human resources as well as the cost of data collection. This was exacerbated by insufficient human skills, and lack of technology and operational facilities. This resulted in the irregular release of information. Ranked second were problems related to data-analysis, the insufficient comprehension of labour issues and limited awareness of Decent Work Indicators among stakeholders. In third place came insufficient commitment to labour issues. One outcome of this was poor coordination between monitoring and pol-icy making. The problem of different interpretation of concepts makes it difficult to make comparisons with other countries. In some cases, the indicators are new and may not be readily available in all countries. The summary of the challenges identified are in Table 2.

Table 2. Challenges and pitfalls of measuring decent work in Zambia

Rank Votes Challenges and pitfalls of measuring decent work in Zambia

1. 31 votes

Limited data availability and challenges in collecting information

• Non-availability of financial resources

• Non-availability of required human resources

• Availability of data

• Cost of data collection

• Data capturing

• Human capital and skills

• Irregular release of info

• Non availability of information to conduct baseline study

• Lack of technology and operational facilities

2. 18 votes Data analysis

• Analysis

• Insufficient comprehension of labour issues

• Limited awareness of DWIs and concepts among stakeholders

3. 15 votes

Lack of commitment and coordination

• Insufficient commitment to labour issues

• No coordination between monitoring and policy-making

4. 5 votes Definitions and novelty of indicators

• Definitions

• Cannot learn from other countries because indicators are new

5. 4 votes Substantive challenges: FDI and labour issues

• Harmonization of foreign investment vs. labour standards

6. 1 vote Substantive challenges: Weak bargaining power of labour

• Weakened bargaining power of workers due to limited employment opportunities

Source: Advisory Committee of the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme.

11

5. Current indicator availability and links to the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme

5.1. Presentation

The National Consultant of MAP Project, Mr. Griffin Nyirongo, presented the background study ‘Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia’ (see also Annex IV).1 The background study highlighted the current indicator availability and links to the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme (Z-DWCP).

The priority areas of the Z-DWCP are ‘More and better employment for all, in particular for the youth, women and people with disabilities, supported by a functional Labour Market Information (LMI) system’ (Priority 1); ‘Responding to HIV and AIDS challenges in the world of work in Zambia’ (Priority 2) and ‘Elimination of child labour, particularly in its worst forms’ (Priority 3). The Z-DWCP priorities reflected the constituents’ priorities and were consistent with national development priorities. Poverty reduction and employment creation is a high priority for the Zambian Government, as reflected in the National Employment and Labour Market Policy (NELMP) and in the title of the Fifth National Development Plan (2006-2010) – “Achieving broad-based wealth and job creation through technological advancement and citizenry participation”.

The background study outlined the country context during the design of the Z-DWCP. Poverty levels were high, with approximately 67 per cent of Zambians living below the poverty line. Poverty was exacerbated by the persistently high unemployment levels, and compounded by the HIV and AIDS pandemic whose prevalence was estimated at about 15.6 per cent of the population between the ages of 15 and 49 years. GDP growth, which had averaged 5 to 6 per cent annually over the past seven years, had not translated into a commensurate increase in the number of jobs. Eighty per cent of the employed population are engaged in the informal economy and close to 900,000 children are in child labour in Zambia, primarily in agriculture, forestry and fishery, and approximately 780,000 of them in hazardous child labour.

Since Zambia joined the ILO in 1964, Zambia has ratified 43 Conventions, of which 39 are currently in force. Included among the ratified Conventions are the eight core Conventions. For decent work to become a reality in Zambia, Mr. Nyirongo argued that it was essential to have the fundamental labour standards in place and domesticated.

The study noted that the three Z-DWCP priorities would contribute towards Zambia’s efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), namely MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; MDG 2: Achieve universal primary education; MDG 3: Promote gender equality and empower women; and MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. By addressing the three Z-DWCP priorities, every effort will be made to contribute to the implementation of the NELMP, and to the actionable areas of the Employment and Labour chapter in the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP).

The study noted that whilst the activities under the country programme have multiplied, key structures for an effective implementation of the country programme had only been put in place in late 2009 as was the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and an implementation plan (IP) for the Z-DWCP. The Advisory Committee to provide guidance to the work under the country programme was constituted in August 2009.

1 Griffin Nyirongo (2010), Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia. National Background Study (Lusaka and Geneva, ILO).

12

There are a number of technical cooperation projects related to decent work that are implemented by the ILO. Other cooperating partners involved in projects related to decent work are the EU, World Bank and various United Nations agencies. The Z-DWCP also contributes to the common objectives of the United Nations system in Zambia through the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) outcomes:

i. HIV & AIDS, through the Z-DWCP priority II on HIV and AIDS; ii. Basic social services, through Z-DWCP priority III on the elimination of child

labour and the cross-cutting priority on job quality; iii. Governance, through all Z-DWCP priorities; iv. Food security, through Z-DWCP priority I on job creation and the crosscutting

priority on job quality.

ILO projects related to decent work are implemented in the three priority areas of the Z-DWCP, namely: job creation (Pillar I), HIV and AIDS at the workplace (Pillar II) and elimination of child labour (Pillar III). There is close cooperation with sister UN agencies in all priority areas of the Z-DWCP

The projects under Pillar I (Job creation) are: Broad-Based Wealth and Job Creation Programme (BBW&JC); Women’s Entrepreneurship Development and Gender Equality Project (WEDGE); Youth Employment Project (YE); and two projects supporting employment of People with disabilities – the Project Promoting Decent Work for People with Disabilities Through a Disability Inclusion Support Service (INCLUDE) and the Project on Promoting the Employability and Employment of Persons with Disabilities (PEPDEL). Projects under Pillar II (HIV and AIDS at the workplace) have facilitated the establishment of a number of HIV & AIDS workplace policies and programmes during 2007-2008. However, currently there is a major funding gap under this very important priority for Zambia. Pipeline initiatives under Pillar II include the involvement in the next round of Global Fund initiatives for Zambia

The Time-Bound Programme Support Project (TBP-SP) and the Tackling Child Labour through Education and Training (TACKLE) are the two technical projects under Pillar III. There are also projects addressing the cross-cutting issues. The ‘Global Campaign for Social Security for All’ encompasses two broad areas of job quality, namely social security/protection and safety and health at work. The WEDGE and Women Workers’ Rights projects address gender issues.

Other cooperating partners projects related to decent work are the Support for Creative Industries Project and the UN Joint Programme (ILO, UNICEF and IOM) on Human Trafficking (UNJPT). Bilateral partners run various projects and include the Private Sector Development Reform Programme (Netherlands, Sweden, DfID, Finland), Private Sector Development Reform Programme II (Netherlands, DfID, Finland), Capacity Building for Private Sector Programme (EU) and Profit Zambia (USAID). The Government is also engaged in decent work projects through the Private Sector Development (PSD) Programme and labour force surveys.

Mr. Nyirongo acknowledged the Government’s recognition of the importance of labour market information. Both the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) and Zambia’s National Employment and Labour Market Policy (NELMP) highlight the importance of labour market information. The study identified the existing producers and sources of labour market information as follows:

• Central Statistical Office o Living Conditions Monitoring Surveys (LCMS) o Labour Force Survey o Child Labour Survey

13

o Quarterly Employment and Earnings Inquiry o Consumer Price Index o Census of Population and Housing

• Ministry of Labour and Social Security o Administrative data

• Ministry of Education o Administrative data

The study identified indicators for monitoring and assessing progress on decent work in Zambia conforming to the substantive elements of decent work under the ILO’s framework for measuring decent work. The study shows a substantial overlap between FNDP per-formance indicators and Decent Work Indicators. The key FNDP indicators relate to employment and labour, education and skills development, social protection, HIV and AIDS and gender. The study also introduced the indicators that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security wants to monitor as part of a LMIS. The indicators pertain to population, labour force, labour demand and supply, education and training, informal sector, wages and earnings, economic statistics, industrial relations, productivity, occupational safety and health, child labour, social protection, persons with disabilities, persons living with HIV and AIDS, and labour migration.

The national consultant also presented the legal framework indicators, which are the various that provide for decent work such as the Minimum Wage and Conditions of Employment Act, Employment Act, Industrial Relations Act, Persons with Disabilities Act and the Employment of Young Persons and Children Act.

5.2. Plenary discussion

It was observed that the report showed that there was no data available to measure combing work, family and personal life. This gave the impression that the issue was not important in Zambia. It was, however, pointed out that the unavailability of data did not imply that the substantive element of ‘Combing work, family and personal life’ was not important in Zambia. It was the responsibility of the Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Z-DWCP to identify indicators that Zambia considered useful.

6. Working groups on thematic areas

Working groups were constituted to identify the core indicators for monitoring and assessing decent work in Zambia. The groups discussed the considered the ten thematic areas in three sessions with each session discussing three thematic areas with the exception of one session where two thematic areas were combined and discussed in one group.

6.1. Employment opportunities

Group presentation

In the first session of group presentations, group 1 addressed the issue of employment opportunities. The rapporteur of the group Mr. Mtumbi Goma, representing the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions, noted that the group had adopted all Decent Work Indicators on employment opportunities from the list compiled by the Tripartite Meeting of Experts in Geneva and proposed to add an additional indicator to measure underemployment. The group had distinguished between main and additional indicators. The following were retained as main indicators since the group felt that these were important in measuring employment opportunities: EMPL-1 (Employment-to-population ratio, 15-64 years [S]),

14

EMPL-2 (Unemployment rate [S]), EMPL-3 (Youth not in education and not in employment, 15-24 years [S]) and EMPL-4 (Informal employment [S]). The group observed that EMPL-3 (Youth not in education and not in employment, 15-24 years [S]) was important in the Zambia context because of the high proportion of youth in the Zambian population.2

The group proposed adding an indicator to measure underemployment (or for labour underutilization), as the vast majority of the population (80 per cent) was engaged in the informal sector and subsistence agriculture. Both are characterized by underemployment respectively labour underutilization, especially agriculture where most participants work less than 30 hours per week outside the growing season.

The group further proposed that indicator EMPL-10 (Share of wage employment in non-agricultural employment [S]) should be a main indicator on account that it helps measure the level of development in a country. Conventional development theory presupposes that if a high proportion of the labour force is engaged in agriculture, this is a reflection of an underdeveloped economy. Economic development is accompanied by a decrease in the population that is engaged in agriculture relative to those engaged in industry and services. Hence, an increase in the share of wage employment in non-agriculture employment would imply development as it reflects changes in the contribution of the different sectors in the economy with agriculture declining.

In justifying the retention of additional indicator, EMPL-6 (Youth unemployment) the group noted that this indicator was useful in that it implied the number of youth who were engaged in unskilled work. Most of the youth are in the 15-24 year age-bracket and it was most likely that the majority were unskilled, as most would not have had the opportunity to obtain skills. The importance of indicator EMPL-7 (A – Unemployment by level of education [S]) was that it reflected how much an economy rewards education. It either could promote a desire for further education or could discourage people from pursuing further education when the unemployment rate is low or high, respectively, among those with higher levels of education.

Plenary discussions

In the discussion on the group’s recommendations, it was noted that the groups rationale to place indicator EMPL-10 (Share of wage employment in non-agricultural employment [S]) as a main indicator was that it captured the change in the contribution of the different sectors to employment. In essence, the suggested indicator does not measure the contribution of the different sectors to employment (but rather the structure of non-agricultural employment). For the indicator to capture the intentions of the rationale made to place the indicator as a main indicator, the indicator needed to be amended. To this effect, the plenary resolved to introduce an indicator that reflected the change in the contribution of the different sectors in the economy, namely “Employment by sector (agriculture, industry, services) (S)”. An indicator that measures the distribution of workers in the different sectors would help to inform the country on strides being made in development assuming that the employment distribution shifts from agriculture to non-agricultural activities as a country climbs the development ladder.

The group concurred with the observation in the plenary that the proposed new indicator to measure underemployment referred to time-related underemployment. It was noted that work was underway in the ILO to develop an indicator to measure labour underutilization,

2 The youth population aged between 15 and 24 years of age make up 22 per cent of the population of Zambia. 68 per cent of the population is aged 24 years or below.

15

which ultimately would be the most appropriate indicator. For the meantime, the plenary suggested to use the time-related underemployment rate as an additional indicator.

6.2. Adequate earnings and productive work

Group presentation

Mr. Lyson Mando of the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Zambia was rapporteur for group 2. He informed the plenary that the group had not included two of the indicators on the basis that data are not available, namely indicator EARN-3 (A – Average hourly earn-ings in selected occupations [S]) and indicator EARN-7 (A – Employees with recent job training (past year / past 4 weeks) [S]). The group proposed to retain the two main indi-cators because of better data availability, namely EARN-1 (M – Working poor [S]) and EARN-2 (M – Low pay rate (below 2/3 of median hourly earnings) [S]). The working poor can be computed from data on poverty available in the LCMS and combining it with data on employment from the LFS.

The group also recommended prioritizing two indicators as main indicators that were listed as ‘additional indicators’ in the framework developed by the Tripartite Meeting of Experts. This applied to EARN-4 (A – Average real wages [S]) and EARN-6 (A – Manufacturing wage index). The group stressed the importance of indicator EARN 6 as it would help guide new investors in setting wages. The additional indicator EARN-5 (A – Minimum wage as a percentage of median wage) was retained as it showed the extent to which the minimum wage relates to the poverty levels. The group acknowledged that there was need to strengthen data on adequate earnings by conducting a wages survey.

Plenary discussion

The measures on wage-related indicators were inadequate as there are currently gaps in the data collection in Zambia. Data collected pertained to earnings and the indicators required data on wages, which was currently not available as no wage survey has been undertaken in Zambia.

The plenary discussed the definition of working poor. The group indicated that a number of factors such as income and the number of persons in a household had a bearing on poverty. An example was given of two individuals each earning K500,000 per month, but one who was single and the other who had to support a family of eight. The poverty in the household with eight dependants would obviously be expected to be worse than in the single-person household. The plenary also considered another measure of poverty, which defines poverty based on the proportion of income spent on food. One is considered poor if more than 35 per cent of income is spent on food. Another measure of poverty was the international poverty datum line of $1 or $2 per day used by the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations. The Advisory Committee had the latitude to choose the measure for poverty in the Zambian context, as they deemed appropriate. The plenary session decided that since Zambia did not have a poverty datum line, it was resolved to use the international poverty datum line of $1 or $2 per day to measure of poverty.

It was observed that the recommendation by the group to retain indicator EARN-6 (A – Manufacturing wage index) needed to be recast to extend to measurement of wage indices in other sectors such as agriculture, mining and manufacturing. Copper smelting is classified as a manufacturing activity and not as mining. This would enhance making comparisons between the primary sectors and manufacturing sectors (as it was widely observed that wages tend to increase with the levels of processing). For example, a cotton picker is not expected to earn more than a worker in a cotton ginnery. Following the

16

discussion, consensus was arrived at to remove EARN-6 (A – Manufacturing wage index) and disaggregate indicator EARN-4 (A – Average real wages [S]) by sector/industry to measure average real wages in the different sectors.

6.3. Decent hours

Group presentation

The spokesperson for group 3, Mr. E Sibbuku, from the Zambia Development Agency, reported that the group had proposed to retain two indicators, namely HOUR-1 (M – Excessive hours [more than 48 hours per week; ‘usual’ hours] [S]) and HOUR-4 (A – Time-related underemployment rate [S]). The group further proposed that data on excessive hours should be disaggregated based on economic activity, occupation and sex. The indicators that the group rejected were indicator HOUR-2 (A – Usual hours worked [standardized hour bands] [S]) and HOUR-3 (A – Annual hours worked per employed person [S]).

Plenary discussion

Discussion on decent hours focused on indicator HOUR-4 (A – Time-related underemployment rate [S]), with participants pointing that there was no correlation between hours worked and the amount of money earned. In most cases, people who work fewer hours got less pay, as was the case in subsistence farming in Zambia where farmers worked less than 30 hours and got very little in return. On the contrary, night watchmen worked excessive hours and yet got little pay. The ideal situation would be to come up with the minimum number of hours that would enable a person get adequate income.

Participants also noted that the indicator HOUR-4 did not capture working conditions for shift work. An example of security guards who worked for more than 12 hours a day for a complete month was offered. It was, however, pointed out that the law provides that shift workers are supposed to get days off to compensate for long hours. This applies to nurses who after working for three continuous days on night shift are entitled to three days off after completion of the shift. In order to capture the aspect of shift work it was resolved to introduce an additional indicator to measure ‘Asocial hours/shift work’.

6.4. Combining work, family and personal life

Group presentation

Since ‘Decent hours’ and ‘Combining work, family and personal life’ had been combined in a single working group, Mr. E. Sibbuku continued to report on his groups findings relating to the second issue. He detailed that the group had proposed three new main indicators to measure combining work with family and personal life. The group was of the view that indicator HOUR-1 (M – Excessive hours [more than 48 hours per week; ‘usual’ hours] [S]) could also measure the extent to which one had time to pursue family and personal life. To this effect there was need to control excessive hours to enable one to have time for personal and family life.

The second indicator proposed was the number of workers covered by social security that provides for family and personal life. This would measure the extent to which social security meets the family and personal needs of families, for example, in cases of short-term unemployment. This requires introduction of new types of benefits provided by social

17

security schemes in Zambia, as currently there is no scheme that provides benefits to a worker who loses a job and searches for a new job.

The third new indicator that the group recommended measures the number of signed collective agreements that include provisions for family and personal life. Most collective agreements address various aspects of conditions of work that promote combining work, family, and personal life, such as maternity and paternity leave, educational entitlements and other allowances.

Plenary discussion

The plenary noted that the proposal made by the group touched on other elements of decent work. The proposed indicator to measure the number of signed collective agreements that include provisions for family and personal life was essentially a matter of social dialogue, while the number of workers covered by social security arrangement that provide for family and personal life belonged to the social security cluster. The indicator on excessive hours falls under decent hours. The facilitator suggested to defer the question of which indicators should be grouped under which heading as this could best be revisited once the full list of indicators had been compiled, which could then be harmonized at a later stage.

Some participants stressed the relevance of excessive hours (indicator HOUR-1) in the context of combining work with family and personal life. The plenary session noted that excessive work was rampant in shift work, especially among night watchmen. Security guards in Zambia work excessive hours of up to 72 hours a week, leaving them with little or no time for family and personal life. The group reported that they had considered shift work and concluded that measures needed to be put in place to protect all shift- and night-workers from working more than 48 hours.

6.5. Work that should be abolished

Group presentation

The rapporteur for the group, Ms. Esther Ngambi from the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS), informed the workshop that the group had endorsed the two existing indicators that measure work to be abolished, namely ABOL-l (M – Child labour [as defined by draft ICLS resolution] [S]) and additional indicator ABOL-2 (A – Hazardous child labour [S]). The group proposed that these indicators should be disaggregated by age, sex and economic activity. They further proposed that the indicator measuring hazardous child labour should be a main indicator (rather than an additional indicator).

The group proposed to add three new indicators: the number of children withdrawn from child labour by age, sex and economical activity, as a new main indicator to measure progress made in abolishing child labour. The group also proposed to measure forced labour by sex, age and economic activity. Further, the number of children working excessive hours and at low pay by sex, age and economic activity was the third new indicator introduced by the group. The group explained that if the plenary felt that the number of indicators were too many, the plenary could choose between the indicator to measure forced labour and the indicator on the number of children working excessive hours and at low pay.

18

Plenary discussion

The group was asked to provide some examples of forced labour in Zambia. The group explained that one condition for forced labour was when a person was compelled to do a job against her or his will, and had no possibility of withdrawing from this job. Forced labour also occurs when a person is promised a job when in fact they are being deceived and maintained to work in illegal or dubious trades such as prostitution. Such cases are common in Western Europe where young women are brought in from Eastern Europe and other countries, with promise of jobs as house cleaners, and yet end up as sex workers. Their passports are often withheld from them as a way of controlling their movement. In Zambia, it was reported that there are cases where people in towns get relatives from the village on the premise that they will assist them further their education only to end up as house cleaners.

The plenary considered the group’s request for the plenary decide on whether to include both the indicators on forced labour and on the number of children working excessive hours and at low pay. It was observed that the proposed new indicator on the number of children working excessive hours and at low pay could be misinterpreted to imply that there was nothing wrong with children working excessive hours, as long as the pay was high. It was further noted that raw data on forced labour was available. It was therefore resolved that both indicators would be adopted, with the decision that forced labour would serve as a main indicator. The indicator on the number of children working excessive hours and at low pay rate would not be included.

6.6. Stability and security of work

Group presentation

The rapporteur of the group on stability and security of work, Mr. Vince Chipatuka from the Civil Society for Poverty Reduction, reported that the group had observed that indica-tor EMPL-4 (M – Informal Employment [S]) was already an indicator under the employ-ment opportunities cluster. The group retained indicator STAB-1 (M – Precarious work) and recommended that the indicator STAB-2 (A – Employment tenure [S]) should become a main indicator, and not an additional indicator. The data on employment tenure could be collected in the Quarterly Employment and Earnings Inquiry. The group recommended the inclusion of two new indicators: one indicator which would measure the average real wage for casual workers as a percentage of the total average wages. This indicator would help measure the dues paid to casual workers given the high incidence of casual labour in Zambia. The second proposed indicator would measure the share of casual workers in total employment. This would help measure the extent of “casualization” in Zambia.

Plenary discussion

It was noted that precarious work exists in both the formal and informal sectors. One of the reasons for the existence of precarious work in the formal sector was the lack of union representation for the affected workers engaged in precarious work. A recent ILO study on the impact of the global financial crisis in the tourism sector found that workers in the tourism sector were exposed to precarious work primarily because they lacked union representation. The Industrial Relations Act provides for union representation in establishments with 25 or more employees. Most of the tourist establishments such as lodges and guesthouses employ less than 25 employees and therefore do not qualify for union representation.

19

The plenary heard that the lack of union representation on account of the 25-employee regulation could be circumvented when the employer association signs collective agree-ments with trade unions. For example, the bus and taxi drivers’ union could sign an agreement with bus and taxi owners’ association and cover all bus and taxi owners, regardless of the number of employees. It was, however, noted that such arrangements were not legally binding as it was left to the discretion of individual bus and taxi owners to implement such agreements. The example of the Zambia Federation of Employers (ZFE) was also given as a case in point. ZFE has a membership of 200 employers out of a potential membership of over a thousand because the law does not compel employers to be members of ZFE. In view of these observations, it was resolved to expand precarious work to cover both the informal and formal sectors.

The group clarified the intended purpose of the proposed indicator to measure the average real wage for casual workers as a percentage of the total average wages. The group explained that the indicator sought to show the extent of low pay to casual workers, relative to all workers. It was argued that it would suffice to measure the average wages for casual workers. This can then be compared to the average wages in the indicator EARN-4 (A – Average real wages [S]) to show the extent of low pay to casual workers. The indicator could also be used to measure improvements in wages of casual workers (that would be missed if they increased in line with average wages, and hence no change in the average real wage for casual workers as a percentage of the total average wages would be observed). It was therefore resolved that the proposed indicator to measure the average real wage for casual workers as a percentage of the total average wages should be amended to measure average real wage for casual workers.

6.7. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment

Group presentation

Ms. Brenda Mwiinga, representing the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoH), presented the group report. In their report, the group recommended five indictors to measure equal opportunity and treatment in employment, three main and two additional indicators. The group proposed to retain EQUA-1 (M – Occupational segregation by sex), EQUA-2 (M – Female share of employment in ISCO-88 groups 11 and 12) and elevate EQUA-3 (A – Gender wage gap) to a main indicator. The group suggested two new additional indicators to measure discrimination by disability and the female share of employment in ISCO group 13. The inclusion of ISCO group 13 was recommended because a large number of females are engaged in small and medium enterprises. ISCO group 11, 12 and 13 refer to senior administrative and legislative positions, corporate management and general managers, respectively.

Plenary discussion

The plenary session noted that the measure of female share of employment in ISCO-88 groups 11 and 12 (EQUA-2) is important to Government to measure progress made in meeting targets set under various regional and continental protocols. The SADC Protocol on Gender stipulates that women should hold 30 per cent of public management and political positions. The African Union set the target at 50 per cent. It was noted that poor data availability made it difficult to calculate EQUA-1 (M – Occupational segregation by sex [Index of Dissimilarity]). To this effect it was resolved that the indicator EQUA-1 (M – Occupational segregation by sex [Index of Dissimilarity]) should therefore be replaced by an indicator that measured the female share of employment by major occupational groups.

20

The meeting recognized the difficulties in measuring the gender wage gap (EQUA-3). Concern was raised whether the gender wage gap reflected the general picture or reflected wage gaps across occupations. If one considers gender wage gap by occupation, the complication is that the gap may not show (as wages are attached to positions regardless of whether the holder is male or female). The reality is that women are not getting into higher positions that attract high incomes, as opposed to getting lower pay for the same job.

In the past, income disparities existed as a result of discriminatory regulations. In the civil service, for example, married women were not paid housing allowance as it was widely accepted that it was the husbands’ responsibility to provide accommodation. It was there-fore, recommended that the average wages for men and women could be used as a basis to measure the gender wage gap. This would still face difficulties in computation, considering that the Government wage bill is not disaggregated by sex and will need additional work to make it usable.

6.8. Safe work environment

Group presentation

The group’s spokesperson, Mr. Kakoma Chivunda from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MLSS), stated that the group had proposed five indicators for measuring a safe work environment. The group advocated the retention of SAFE-1 (M – Occupational injury rate, fatal), SAFE-2 (A – Occupational injury rate, non-fatal), SAFE-3 (A – Time lost due to occupational injuries) and SAFE-4 (A – Labour inspection [inspectors per 10,000 employed persons]). The group proposed that indicators SAFE-2 (Occupational injury rate, non-fatal) and SAFE-3 (Time lost due to occupational injuries) should be priority (main) indicators and not additional indicators. The group noted that Zambia has had fatal and non-fatal industrial accidents. They gave examples of the BGRIMM explosion3 and the fire in the Kariba North Bank hydroelectric power station (situated just a few kilometres from the workshop venue).4 In addition, the group noted that information to measure the indicators was available in principle, as the law requires companies to provide details of accidents and time lost due to occupational injuries.

The group suggested that indicator SAFE-3 (Time lost due to occupational injuries) indicator could also be used to an indicative proxy of productivity losses. On indicator SAFE-4 (Labour inspection [inspectors per 10,000 employed persons]), the group explained that they had extensive debate on which indicator was more appropriate as a measure of governments’ commitment to labour inspections: the number of inspectors or the number of inspections. The group nevertheless decided to settle for the number of labour inspectors because the more inspectors a country had, the more inspections it would be expected to conduct. The group recommended a new additional indicator to measure occupational diseases by industry. The group acknowledged that it would be difficult to obtain data on this indicator, but felt it was an important indicator.

3 In April 2005, an explosion at a Chinese-owned explosives manufacturing company Beijing General Research Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (BGRIMM) killed 49 workers.

4 On September 18, 2009, a fire broke out at Kariba North Bank Power Station at a site where China’s Sinohydro Corporation is working at the station to expand the power station’s generation capacity. Three people died.

21

Plenary discussion

The plenary session was informed that information on the number of labour inspections conducted is available at the MLSS. The Ministry has introduced an integrated labour inspection system whereby inspections by a labour inspector will cover both labour and occupational and safety and health issues. In this regard, a proposal was made to have two indicators to measure labour inspections. One of the indicators would measure the number of labour inspections and the other would measure the number of labour inspectors per 10,000 employed persons. The meeting accepted the proposal made to break down the labour inspection indicator into two indicators to allow for measurement of both the num-bers of inspectors and the frequency of inspections (labour inspection rate). This was after the meeting was cautioned on the use of the indicator showing the number of inspectors. A large number of inspectors did not necessarily imply a higher frequency of inspections, as inspections are dependent on the availability of resources to conduct inspections.

6.9. Social security

Group presentation

The group representative Ms. Belinda Musopelo, Ministry of Justice, presented the group’s position in which they proposed to reduce the age limit in SECU-1 (M – Share of popu-lation aged 65 and above benefiting from a pension [S]) from 65 years to 55 years to take into account the normal retirement age in Zambia which is 55 years. The group were of the view that indicator SECU-2 (M – Public social security expenditure [% of GDP]) did not give a complete picture of the social security coverage rate. The indicator only focuses on public expenditure on social security and yet Government was not the only source of social security. To make the indicator more comprehensive, the group recommended amending SECU-2 to cover both private and public social security expenditure.

The group proposed to retain SECU-4 (A – Share of population covered by [basic] health-care provision [S]) as it was important to measure the availability of health care in the country. The group rejected SECU-3 (A – Health-care expenditure not financed out of pocket by private households) as it was difficult to obtain data. As an alternative, the group proposed a new indicator to measure government expenditure on health care as a per-centage of GDP. The group also proposed, as a main indicator, to compute the share of the economically active population that is contributing to pension schemes as a measure of the scope of social security coverage in Zambia.

Plenary discussion

During the plenary, it was noted that the existing indicator SECU-1 (M – Share of population aged 65 and above benefiting from a pension [S]), was linked to the proposed new indicator, the share of the economically active population contributing to pension schemes. The latter could be a proxy of how pension coverage develops in the future since current contributors are the future beneficiaries of the pension scheme.

Fears that data for private social security expenditure may not be available were allayed as the Pension and Insurance Authority, which was responsible to regulate pension schemes, had information on both private and public pension schemes. Though it was brought to the attention of the plenary that in some countries social security covered health and non-health expenditures, the plenary resolved to compute both indicators separately (total social security expenditure, and Government expenditure on health care).

22

6.10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation

Group presentation

On behalf of the group Mr. John Banda, representative of the Zambia Federation of Employers (ZFE), reported that the group decided to adopt all the five indicators, namely DIAL-1 (M – Union density rate [S]), DIAL-2 (M – Enterprises belonging to employer organization [rate]), DIAL-3 (M – Collective bargaining coverage rate [S]) and DIAL-5 (A – Strikes and lockouts [rates of days not worked]). However, the group proposed to calculate indicator DIAL-2 (M – Enterprises belonging to employer organization [rate]) in a way that it reflects the number of employees in member enterprises, i.e. to give greater weight to enterprises that employ a high number of workers. The group also noted that the indicator DIAL-4 (M – Indicator for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining) was yet to be developed by the ILO, but still considered it as essential and recommended that it be included for Zambia.

Plenary discussion

A concern was raised on the dilemma posed by the exclusion of government employees in measuring DIAL-2 (M – Enterprises belonging to employer organization [rate]), given that Government was not a member of the ZFE and yet was the largest employer in the country. This could be addressed by calculating rates that refer to total paid employment (including government employment) and an adjusted rate that only refers to non-government employment as a denominator.

It was agreed that the MLSS be included as an additional source of information to the unions and employer organization, as it had the responsibility of registering unions and was a depository of collective agreements. Various committees such as occupational safety and health committees could be used to collect information. In some countries, works councils had been identified as an important forum for social dialogue. This was the case in the Austria, where constituents had highlighted the role of works council in their discussion of the draft Decent Work Country Profile for their country.

7. Priorities for the national monitoring framework: which short set of indicators should be promoted?

As stated by Dr Winnie Sithole Mwenda, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, during the opening session, one expected outcome of the workshop was the selection of a short set of indicators that should be promoted in monitoring decent work in Zambia within the framework of national plans monitoring and evaluation. The selection of the short set does not entail that the other indicators identified by the workshop were discarded as irrelevant. Rather, the short set of indicators will be promoted for monitoring of decent work in the context of the national development plans and Vision 2030. The indicators that do not appear on the short list would still be considered for other purposes, such as the preparation of the Decent Work Country Profile for Zambia. The exercise to select the short set of indicators was preceded by identifying the sources and availability of data on the indicators proposed to monitor decent work in Zambia.

23

7.1. Data sources and availability

The workshop embarked on the exercise of identifying the indicators that had been proposed for which data was available, as this was an issue that had to be kept in mind when identifying indicators for national monitoring. It was pointed out that it would not be useful to include a large number of indicators where data are not available into documents such as the Sixth National Development Plan as this would then hinder effective monitor-ing. At the same time, efforts could be made to gather data if the Advisory Committee felt that the inclusion of a specific indicator was essential for Zambia.

Three general types of data sources where identified, namely household surveys, enterprise surveys and administrative data sources (see Table 3). Household and enterprise surveys are conducted with the explicit purpose of collecting data. On the other hand, adminis-trative data sources serve other primary purposes, and collect information not necessarily with the stated intention for measuring decent work. Trade unions, for example, collect data on members primarily for purposes of tracking membership fees. Pension funds needs to have a database of members for the purpose of knowing who needs to be paid and when. In both cases, the data has secondary uses and can be used to inform decision-making. The main sources of data were identified as follows:

Table 3. Main sources of data to measure decent work

Type Sources

Household surveys LCMS, LFS

Enterprise surveys Economic Census, Quarterly Employment and Earnings Inquiry

Administrative data sources Government ministries and departments, trade unions, employers organizations, social security institutions.

The workshop recognized the need to improve the quality of administrative data sources. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security is in discussion with the ILO for assistance to develop a database. The United Nations also recognizes the need to improve the quality of administrative data. At a meeting held in October, the United Nations requested the ILO to develop a standard administrative database which countries could then adapt to suit their individual country context. The standard administrative database would greatly assist countries capture administrative data and would be organized along the lines of the Debt Management Database and Trade Database that have been developed by UNCTAD.

Data availability is not an end in itself. Rather, data must not only be available but must be accessible. The meeting was reminded that the issue of administrative data sources would be one of the topics for discussions at the LMI training workshop that followed the Special Session of the Advisory Committee of the Z-DWCP.5 During the process of identifying sources and availability of data, observations were made in on some of the indicators.

Adequate earnings and productive work

Participants argued that no comprehensive data for wage-based indicators were available, as no wage survey has been conducted. The use of earnings was also limited as the quar-terly Earnings and Employment Inquiry is confined to formal sector establishments. The

5 The Special Session of the Advisory Committee of the Z-DWCP was followed by a data analysis training workshop for labour market information for official from the CSO, MLSS, trade unions and the ZFE. The training workshop took place from 27 to 31 January 2010.

24

challenge for Zambia was to consider incorporating wage-related indicators into the quarterly Earnings and Employment Inquiry and extend coverage to the informal sector.

There is a difference between wages and earnings. Wages refer to the basic pay, while earnings include basic pay and allowances. In the absence of a wages survey, one can use average real earnings as the proxy indicator. There was, however, a difference since in Zambia, the share of non-wage elements in total compensation was believed to be high, especially among management staff.

Decent hours

The indicator HOUR 1 (M – Excessive hours [more than 48 hours per week, ‘usual’ hours]) by economic activity, occupation and sex (S) appeared under ‘Decent hours’ and under ‘Combining work, family and personal life’. It was resolved to place indicator HOUR 1 under ‘Decent hours’ as the main listing.

The question of whether measures of underutilization/underemployment took into account seasonality of work has been a subject of discussion at various meetings. The 2008 International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) had defined some of the relevant concepts, in particular ‘current hours’ and ‘usual hours’. The current hours refers to work actually done in last seven days (or another short reference period), whereas ‘usual hours’ refers to the average of work actually done over a longer reference period (for example, six months or one year). The concept of working time was, however, limited to measuring time-related underemployment. For example, whereas the concept of time-related under-employment can be used to capture seasonality of a sugar cane cutter who is employed to cut cane during the cane-cutting season and remains idle during the non cane-cutting season, the concepts cannot capture other forms of labour underutilization. This could for example refer to underutilization, as would be the case of a medical doctor who is unable to find adequate employment and is currently employed below her or his skill level (e.g. as a cleaner).

Combining work, family and personal life

It was argued that the proposed indicator on the number of workers covered by social security is appropriate as an aspect of the social security cluster. The meeting resolved to place the indicator measuring the number of workers covered by a social security scheme to the social security cluster. The meeting also discussed the link between social security coverage and informal employment. For wage employees, formal employment is defined on the basis of meeting three conditions: contributions to a pension scheme, sick leave entitlement, and entitlement to paid annual leave. A person is considered to be in formal wage employment if they fit into all the three criteria. Thus domestic workers who are covered under a social security scheme such as the National Pension Scheme Authority (NAPSA) and who are entitled to paid sick leave and paid annual leave would be counted as formal employees, even if they do not qualify as a formal sector employee since they do not work in an establishment employing more than five persons (which is the definition applied in Zambia). Conversely, informal employment can be found within formal sector establishments whenever a worker fails to meet any of the three conditions outlined above (e.g. lacks paid annual leave). Informal employment is different from informal sector employment in that the former uses the job criterion as the basis for measurement whilst the latter is based on the enterprise.

Work that should be abolished

Participants argued that the indicator measuring the number of children withdrawn from child labour needs to look beyond mere withdrawal, but should also measure whether the

25

children withdrawn from child labour are integrated into appropriate schooling or training programmes. Data on children withdrawn and whether these have been integrated are available from administrative data sources. The Child Labour Committees under MLSS and the Child Protection Committee in the Ministry of Home Affairs collect this information.

On the question on the definition of child labour, participants were informed that child labour was a concept derived from several international instruments, notably the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, the ILO Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), and the ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). However, the ILO Convention No. 138 provided for some flexibility with regard to the minimum age for access to employment, and least developed countries are not restricted to the minimum age 15 and can lower the age to 14 years. Light work can be permitted from 13 years of age (where the general age limit is 15 years) or from 12 years of age (where the general age limit is 14 years).

Equal opportunity and treatment in employment

Data on the share of female employment by major occupations is not readily available, as data on employment by major occupations is not disaggregated by sex. Nevertheless, data on the share of female employment by major occupations in government is available in the Government Employment Census, which has so far only been conducted once.

Safe work environment

A possible source of data on occupational fatalities that was suggested was the National Registration Department, which is responsible for registering births and deaths. However, it was pointed out the data would not be useful in measuring indicator SAFE-1 (M – Occupational injury rate, fatal) as data does not show whether the cause of death occurred as a consequence of an occupational accident or due to other causes. Another limitation posed by national registration data is its limited coverage. Coverage by national registration offices is very low in Africa, with only South Africa and Seychelles reaching 70 per cent coverage.

Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation

The indicator DIAL-4 (M – Indicator for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work [Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining]) was yet be developed by the ILO. It relied primarily on information generated by the ILO’s supervisory system, where Workers’ and Employers’ organizations as well as Governments who have ratified the relevant Conventions can lodge complaints against alleged violations.

The sources of data for the proposed indicators were identified. In some cases, data are readily available while in other cases indicators needed to be computed and in some cases the raw data were not currently collected. There are many household surveys conducted, though most of the data relates to employment characteristics and not much to other aspects of decent work such as social dialogue. Establishment survey provides some data on employment levels and wages, while social security and social dialogue is mainly from administrative data sources.

Most of the data is available but needs to be transformed to conform to the indicators. The full list of indicators that the participants adopted as being relevant for measuring decent work in Zambia are presented in Table 4.

26

Table 4. Full list of Decent Work Indicators that are relevant for Zambia, data sources and data availability (for use in a Decent Work Country Profile and other purposes)

Vote(S) Ref. # Indicator Source Available

Employment opportunities

13 EMPL-1 M – Employment-to-population ratio, 15-64 years (S) LFS; LCMS Yes

1 EMPL-2 M – Unemployment rate (S) LFS; LCMS Yes

7 EMPL-3 M – Youth not in education and not in employment, 15-24 years (S)

LFS; LCMS (Yes)

10 EMPL-4 M – Informal employment (S) LFS (Informal employment module)

(Yes)

0 EMPL M – Share of employment by sector (agriculture, industry, services) (S)

LFS; LCMS Yes

– EMPL-5 A – Labour force participation rate, 15-64 years (S) LFS; LCMS Yes

– EMPL-6 A – Youth unemployment rate, 15-24 years (S) LFS; LCMS Yes

– EMPL-7 A – Unemployment by level of education (S) LFS; LCMS Yes

– EMPL-8 A – Employment by status in employment (S) LFS; LCMS Yes

– EMPL-9 A – Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment (S)

LFS; LCMS Yes

– See: HOURS

A – Time-related underemployment rate (S) LFS (Working-time module) (Yes)

Adequate earnings and productive work

11 EARN-1 M – Working poor (S) LCMS (Yes)

– EARN-2 M – Low-pay rate (below 2/3 of median hourly earnings) (S)

–

2

EARN-4 M – Average real wages/earnings, by sector/industry (S) LFS (Wage module); Employment and Earnings Inquiry

– / (Yes, formal sector)

7 EARN-5 A – Minimum wage as per cent of average/median wage LFS (Wage module); Employment and Earnings Inquiry

– / (Yes, formal sector)

Decent hours

3 HOUR-1 M – Excessive hours (more than 48 hours per week, ‘usual’ hours), by economic activity, occupation and sex (S)

LFS (Working-time module) (Yes)

4 HOUR-4 A – Time-related underemployment rate (S) LFS (Working-time module) Yes

– HOUR A – Asocial hours / Shift work (S) LFS (Working-time module) –

Combining work, family and personal life

– See: HOUR-1

M – Excessive hours (more than 48 hours per week, ‘usual’ hours), by economic activity, occupation and sex (S)

LFS (Working-time module) (Yes)

– See DWIs under SECU

M – Number of workers covered by social security scheme

LFS; Social security institutions (PIA NAPSA, PSPF, LASF)

(Yes)/(Yes)

0 COMB M – Number of signed collective agreements that include provisions for combining work and family, by industry in a year

MLSS; Trade unions

(Yes)/(Yes)

Work to be abolished

6 ABOL-1 M – Child Labour as defined by ICLS resolution, by age, sex and economic activity (S)

Child Labour Survey; LFS (CL module)

Yes

27

Vote(S) Ref. # Indicator Source Available

3 ABOL-2 M – Hazardous child labour, by age, sex and economic activity (S)

Child Labour Survey; LFS (CL module)

(Yes)

5 ABOL M – Number of children withdrawn from child labour, by age, sex, economic activity and province

Child Labour Survey; MoH/MCDSS/Child Labour Committee/MLSS

–/(Yes)

– ABOL M – Forced labour, by age, sex, economic activity and province

LFS (Forced labour module) (Yes)

Stability and security of work

2 STAB-1 M – Precarious work LFS (Expanded employment module)

(Yes)

4 STAB-2 M – Employment tenure (S) LFS (Expanded employment module)

(Yes)

– See EMPL-4

M – Informal employment (S) LFS (Informal employment module)

(Yes)

– STAB A – Average real wages for causal workers LFS (Wage module)

– STAB A – Share of causal/daily workers in total employment LFS (Employment module)

Equal opportunity and treatment in employment

9 EQUA-2 M – Female share of employment in ISCO-88 groups 11 and 12 [Legislators and senior officials; Corporate managers]

LFS (Yes)

– EQUA-3 M – Gender wage gap LFS (Wage module); Employment and Earnings Inquiry

–/–

– EQUA M – Female share of employment by major occupational group

LFS; Government Employment Census

Yes/(Yes)

– EQUA A – Female share of employment in ISCO-88 group 13 [General managers]

LFS (Yes)

11 EQUA A – Measure of discrimination by disability LFS –

Safe work environment

9 SAFE-1 M – Occupational injury rate, fatal Administrative data sources (Mine Safety Department, OOHS at MLSS, Workers’ Compensation Fund)

(Yes)

1 SAFE-2 M – Occupational injury rate, non-fatal LFS; administrative data sources (Mine Safety Department, OOHS at MLSS, Workers’ Compen-sation Fund)

(Yes)/(Yes)

– SAFE-3 M – Time lost due to occupational injuries LFS; administrative data sources (Mine Safety Department, OOHS at MLSS, Workers’ Compen-sation Fund)

(Yes)/(Yes)

– SAFE-4 A – Number of labour inspectors per 10,000 employees OHSS (MLSS) combined with LFS

(Yes)

– SAFE A – Number of cases of occupation diseases by industry LFS; administrative data sources (Mine Safety Department, OOHS at MLSS, Workers’ Compen-sation Fund)

(Yes)/(Yes)

7 SAFE A – Labour inspection rate OHSS (MLSS) combined with LFS

(Yes)

28

Vote(S) Ref. # Indicator Source Available

Social security

6 SECU-1 M – Share population aged 55 years and above benefiting from a pension (S)

LFS; Social security institutions (PIA NAPSA, PSPF, LASF)

(Yes)/–

4 SECU M – Share of economically active population contributing to pension scheme (S)

LFS; Social security institutions (PIA NAPSA, PSPF, LASF)

(Yes)/–

2 SECU M – Public and private social security expenditure, in % of GDP

MoFNP; Social security institutions (PIA NAPSA, PSPF, LASF)

(Yes) /–

– A – Government expenditure on health care, in % of GDP MoFNP (Yes)

2 SECU-4 A – Share of population covered by (basic) health care provision (S)

MoH (Yes)

Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation

8 DIAL-1 M – Union density rate (S) MLSS, ZCTU, FFTUZ combined with LFS

(Yes)

5 DIAL-2 M – Enterprises belonging to employer organizations (rate)

ZFE, combined with LFS (Yes)

– DIAL-3 M – Collective bargaining coverage rate (S) MLSS, ZCTU, FFTUZ, combined with LFS

(Yes)

– DIAL-4 M – Indicators for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining) to be developed by the ILO

ILO (Yes)

– DIAL-5 A – Strikes and lock-outs (rates of days not worked) MLSS, ZCTU, FFTUZ, ZFE (Yes)

Key:

Different Types of Indicators

Main indicator (M): parsimonious core set of indicators to monitor progress towards decent work

Additional indicators (A): to be used where appropriate and where data is available

Context indicators (C): provide information on the economic and social context for decent work

Future indications (F): currently not feasible, but to be included as data became more widely available

Information included under Legal framework (L)

(S) means that an indicator should be disaggregated by sex.

(Yes) means that the raw data for an indicator are available, but that some work needs to be done to calculate the indicator.

Notes: Votes highlighted in bold were the priority indicators identified by the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee. Reference numbers correspond to those listed in the background study (see footnote 1).

7.2. Short set of indicators for national monitori ng

In order to include monitoring decent work in the national planning framework, it is neces-sary to narrow the list of relevant indicators down to a small number of indicators. A proposal was made to cluster the proposed indicators under the four strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda to ensure that the short set covers all the four pillars. Another proposal was not to subject the MDG indicators to a vote, but to include them auto-matically in the short list of indicators. However, it was resolved that all the indicators, where data could be made available from existing sources, should be voted upon to reflect constituents’ priorities. It was argued that MDG indicators were binding only for inter-national monitoring, but that countries had the autonomy to decide on the indicators. Although no published data are currently available for the employment situations of work-ers with disabilities, the group decided that the indicator measuring discrimination by disability should be eligible for inclusion, as no disability issues are covered in the existing indicators and primary data already existed in the Labour Force Survey.

29

Following a proposal to have approximately eight indicators in the short set of indicators, the meeting proceeded to vote on which indicators they wanted to prioritize to feed into the national planning process with each person allowed eight votes. Participants agreed that no more than one vote per participant could be placed on any single indicator, and no more than two votes within each of the ten substantive elements. The voting resulted in the selection of seven indicators from six of the ten substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda. As three indicators were tied with seven votes each, a proposal was made to include all of them in the short set of indicators, which would raise the number of indicators in the short set to ten. However, a counter proposal was made to also include the indicators that had attracted six votes, increasing the number of indicators to twelve. After some debate, this proposal was adopted. This increased the number of substantive elements covered by the short set to seven. The set of core indicators prioritized by the Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the national monitoring purposes is given in Table 5, ranked by the number of votes they attracted.

Table 5. List of Priority Decent Work Indicators for National Monitoring Purposes

VOTES INDICATOR SOURCE AVAILABLE

13 Employment-to-population ratio, 15-64 years (S) LFS; LCMS Yes

11 Working poor (S) LCMS (Yes)

11 Measure of discrimination by disability LFS –

10 Informal employment (S) LFS (Informal employment module) (Yes)

9 Female share of employment in ISCO-88 groups 11 and 12 [Legislators and senior officials; Corporate managers]

LFS (Yes)

9 Occupational injury rate, fatal Administrative data sources (Mine Safety Department, OOHS at MLSS, Workers’ Com-pensation Fund)

(Yes)

8 Union density rate (S) MLSS, ZCTU, FFTUZ combined with LFS (Yes)

7 Youth not in education and not in employment, 15-24 years (S)

LFS; LCMS (Yes)

7 Minimum wage as per cent of average/median wage LFS (Wage module); Employment and Earnings Inquiry

– / (Yes, formal sector)

7 Labour inspection rate OHSS (MLSS) combined with LFS (Yes)

6 Child Labour as defined by ICLS resolution, by age, sex and economic activity (S)

Child Labour Survey; LFS (CL module) Yes

6 Share population aged 55 years and above benefiting from a pension (S)

LFS; Social security institutions (PIA, NAPSA, PSPF, LASF)

(Yes)/–

Key: (S) means that an indicator should be disaggregated by sex.

(Yes) means that the raw data for an indicator are available, but that some work needs to be done to calculate the indicator.

It is apparent from Table 5 that the Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Z-Decent Work Country Profile placed great importance on employment opportunities. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment, safe work environment and adequate earnings and productive work also feature prominently, followed by indicators relating to social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation, work to be abolished and social security. Three of the substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda were not represented in the core indicators identified for inclusion in the monitoring framework, namely ‘Decent hours’, ‘Combining work, family, and personal life’ and ‘Stability and security of work’. However, informal employment (grouped under employment opportunities) also relates to ‘Stability and security of work’. In the case of ‘Decent hours’ and ‘Combining work, family and personal life’, these are covered with main indicators on the full list (Table 4).

30

8. Looking ahead: Collaboration between Zambia and the ILO under the ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work (MAP)”

The workshop deliberated on how the ILO and specifically the ILO/EC Project ‘Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work’ (MAP) could best assist Zambia in addressing the constraints that impeded measuring and monitoring decent work. The work-shop identified the contributions that the various stakeholders could make to improve the monitoring and assessing of decent work in Zambia.

The ILO does not provide resources to conduct surveys, as the ILO is not a donor agency and cannot therefore provide resources to conduct LFS. However, the ILO can provide technical assistance to institutions that collect data and help in building capacity. Specifically, the priorities identified by the Advisory committee for further support through the MAP Project support were:

1. Data analysis and training to address problem of analysis.

2. Collect and analyze data on disability.

3. Support to strengthen collection of wage data.

4. Development of integrated Decent Work Indicator / LMI database and work on a Decent Work Country Profile for Zambia.

With respect to the first point, the Special Session of the Z-DWCP Advisory Committee was informed that a data analysis training workshop that would be held from 27 to 31 January (i.e. immediately after the Special Session) as part of the MAP Project’s support to improve data collection and analysis.

The Advisory Committee suggested that the ILO Lusaka Office could assist in the following areas:

1. Resource mobilization: The ILO can assist in resource mobilization by helping raise the profile of LMIS and help convince MoFNP and donors (e.g. IMF, World Bank) to allocate more resources to labour and employment. The ILO Lusaka Office has engaged a consultant to help develop a resource mobilization strategy and establish a basket fund to fill the resource gap in the implementation of the Z-DWCP. However, resource mobilization is a joint responsibility of Government and ILO.

2. Hardware and software support: The MAP Project has no funds for this, but ILO Lusaka Office was in a better position to provide this assistance as demonstrated by the donations of 14 computers that would be handed over in the following week to support data collection and analysis.

3. Provision of transport and equipment for labour inspections.

31

9. Closing ceremony

The representatives of the Workers, Employers and Government addressed the Advisory Committee as part of the closing ceremony. Mr. Lyson Mando of the FFTUZ, speaking on behalf of the trade unions, expressed the trade unions’ unequivocal support for the MAP Project. It was important that the outcome of the meeting be shared with all the members of the trade unions. Most trade union members were not aware of decent work, and it was incumbent on labour leaders to sensitize their members on the Decent Work Agenda and the Z-DWCP. Mr John Banda of the Zambia Federation of Employers concurred with these remarks

Mr. Owen Mgemezulu, Chief Planner of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, reiterated that the success of the Z-DWCP depended on the commitment of the Advisory Committee. He had no doubt that the members of the committee were committed to fulfilling their task. The effectiveness of the Advisory Committee, which was a tripartite plus committee, in overseeing the implementation of the Z-DWCP could only be guaranteed if members of the committee were well grounded in the knowledge of the Decent Work Indicators. The workshop had given the Advisory Committee the opportunity to learn more about the framework for monitoring decent work.

Mr. Mgemezulu reminded the participants that the indicators which the Advisory Committee had identified had not been imposed by Government, but had been selected in a process in which all partners had participated on an even footing. The need for availability of labour market information was widely recognized by various sectors within Zambia. The Parliamentary Committee on Economics and Labour had lamented at the poor state of labour market information. With the commitment shown by the members of the Advisory Committee, the Government was confident that LMI would be improved in Zambia.

32

Annex I. List of participants

NO. NAME ORGANIZATION JOB TITLE

1 BANDA, John S. Zambia Federation of Employers Manager, Research and Marketing

2 BANDA, Gerson Central Statistical Office Statistician

3 CHANDA, Belinda International Labour Office, Lusaka Programme Officer

4 CHAWANA, A. Gender in Development Division Gender Specialist

5 CHIPATUKA, Vince Civil Society for Poverty Reduction P.M.T. Research and Policy Analysis

6 CHIROVE, Jeoulous International Labour Office, Lusaka Senior Technical Advisor

7 CHIVUNDA, Kakoma M. Ministry of Labour and Social Security Director

8 FINNEGAN, Gerry International Labour Office, Lusaka ILO Representative for Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia

9 GOMA, Mtumbi Zambia Congress of Trade Unions Trustee

10 HABIYAKARE, Tite International Labour Office, Addis Ababa Labour Statistician

11 KABAYI, Annie C. Zambia Federation of Women in Business Chairperson /Trustee

12 KAPAIPI, Milensu International Labour Office, Lusaka Project Assistant, Youth Employment

13 KONAYUMA, G. S. Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training

Senior TEVET Officer

14 KOPAKOPA, Cheelo International Labour Office, Lusaka Programme Associate

15 LUEBKER, Malte International Labour Office, Geneva Chief Technical Advisor

16 LUNGU, Tadeyo Ministry of Finance and National Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Officer

17 MANDO, Lyson Federation of Free Trade Unions in Zambia National Executive Secretary

18 MBEWE, Steven Ministry of Labour and Social Security Principal Planner

19 MGEMEZULU, Owen Ministry of Labour and Social Security Chief Planner

20 MTAMBO, Agness Ministry of Labour and Social Security Secretary

21 MUSONDA, Kaunda M. Zambia Agency for Persons with Disabilities

Human Resources Officer

22 MUSOPELO, Belinda L. Ministry of Justice Parliamentary Counsel

23 MWENDA, Winnie Sithole Ministry of Labour and Social Security Permanent Secretary

24 MWIINGA, Brenda Ministry of Home Affairs Administrative Officer

25 NGAMBI, Esther Ministry of Community Development and Social Services

Senior Social Welfare Officer

33

NO. NAME ORGANIZATION JOB TITLE

26 NYIRONGO, Griffin International Labour Office, Lusaka Consultant

27 SIASIMUNA, Noah S. Ministry of Labour and Social Security Labour Commissioner

28 SIBBUKU, E. Zambia Development Agency SEDO

29 SILVANDER, Johanna International Labour Office, Lusaka Programme Officer

30 ZIMBA, Getrude Ministry of Labour and Social Security Senior Registry Officer

34

Annex II. Programme

Advisory Committee for the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme

ILO Office for Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique

ILO/EC Project ‘Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work’ (MAP) Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme: Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia Date: 25-26 January 2010 Venue: Manchichi Bay Lodge, Siavonga

– Programme –

Monday, 25 January 2010

9.00 – 9.30 hrs

Opening Session • Introductions • Objective setting • Remarks by Mr. Gerry Finnegan, ILO Representative for Malawi,

Mozambique and Zambia • Remarks by Mr. Benoist Bazin, Counsellor, Social Sectors &

Governance, Delegation of the EC in the Republic of Zambia • Remarks by Dr. Winnie Sithole Mwenda, Permanent Secretary,

Ministry of Labour and Social Security

9.30 – 10.15 hrs Overview of the ILO’s framework for Measuring Decen t Work (Malte Luebker and Tite Habiyakare)

10.15 – 10.45 hrs Coffee and tea 10.45 – 11.15 hrs Findings of the Technical Seminar on “Strengthening Labour

Market Information to Monitor Progress on Decent Wo rk in Africa” (20-24 July 2009, Addis Ababa) (Rapporteurs: Gerson Banda and Owen Mgemezulu)

11.15 – 12.00 hrs Working groups on the relevance of monitoring and a ssessing

progress on Decent Work for Zambia Guiding questions:

1. Why should Zambia monitor and assess progress towards decent work, what are the benefits and potential uses?

2. What are the challenges and potential pitfalls?

35

12.00 – 12.30 hrs Presentation of findings by the working groups in t he plenary 12.30 – 13.30 hrs Lunch 13.30 – 14.15 hrs Current indicator availability and links to the Zam bia Decent Work

Country Programme (Griffin Nyirongo) 14.15 – 14.30 hrs Introduction and formation of thematic groups to id entify

Decent Work Indicators for Zambia 14.30 – 15.30 hrs Parallel working groups on three subject areas 15.30 – 16.00 hrs Presentation of findings to the plenary, discussion 16.00 – 16.30 hrs Closing and summary of the first day

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

9.00 – 9.15 hrs Welcome and opening of the second day 9.15 – 10.15 hrs Parallel working groups on four subject areas 10.15 – 10.45 hrs Presentation of findings to the plenary, discussion 10.45 – 11.00 hrs Coffee and tea 11.00 – 12.00 hrs Parallel working groups on four subject areas 12.00 – 12.30 hrs Presentation of findings to the plenary, discussion 12.30 – 13.30 hrs Lunch 13.30 – 14.30 hrs Priorities for the national monitoring framework:

Which short set of indicators should be promoted? 14.30 – 15.30 hrs Looking ahead: Collaboration between Zambia and the ILO under

the ILO/EC Project ‘Monitoring and Assessing Progre ss on Decent Work’ (MAP)

15.30 – 16.00 hrs Closing

The Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme on “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia” has been carried out with funding from the European Union under the ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP).

36

Annex III. Overview of the ILO’s Framework for Measuring Decent Work (presentation)

Overview of the ILO’s Framework for Measuring Decent Work

Malte Luebker, Chief Technical Advisor, MAP Project Tite Habiyakare, Specialist on Labour Statistics, SRO Addis Ababa

Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Zambia Decent Work Country Programme

Siavonga, 25 and 26 January 2010

Decent work as the ILO’s main objective

� ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008) endorses Decent Work Agenda as main objective of the ILO’s work.�Strategic objectives: (i) and fundamental principles

and rights at work, (ii) promoting employment; (iii) social protection; (iv) social dialogue and tripartism.

�Recommends that ILO Members may consider: � “the establishment of appropriate indicators or

statistics, if necessary with the assistance of the ILO, to monitor and evaluate the progress made”

Implications for measurement

� ILO has worked on measurement of decent work since ca. 2000, both in HQ and field.

�What does the Decent Work Agenda imply for measurement of decent work?�Coverage of all elements of the Decent Work

Agenda (beyond employment). �Coverage of all workers.�Concern for the most vulnerable workers.�Cross-cutting concern for gender.� Importance of social & economic context.

Governing Body Discussions

�Governing Body discussions have set the basic principles for measurement of decent work:�Purpose is (i) to assist constituents to assess

progress towards decent work and (ii) to offer comparable information for analysis and policy development.

�NO ranking of countries & NO composite index.�Needs to cover all dimensions of Decent Work,

i.e. go beyond employment and include rights, social protection and social dialogue.

�Measurement to draw on existing statistics.

Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work

�GB mandate for TME to provide guidance on options for measuring decent work:�Held in September 2008 with participation of

20 experts plus observes (from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada … and Zambia).

�Reviews list of statistical indicators .�Stresses importance of rights and recommends to

provide systematic information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work in a manner consistent with ILO supervisory system.

Measuring decent work: Rights at work

�Rights at work and the legal framework for decent work need to be fully reflected: �Number of ratifications & complaints is inadequate

proxy for actual application of labour standards.

�Two proposals:�Textual description of legal framework and data on

actual application for all substantive elements of decent work (L).

�Construction of indicators for countries’ compliance with Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, starting with FoA and CB.

37

Measuring decent work: Gender

�Gender as a cross-cutting concern of the Decent Work Agenda: �Should not be treated in isolation, but measurement

should inform about women’s and men’s access to decent work across all substantive elements.

�Therefore, wherever possible, indicators should be reported separately for men and women in addition to the total.

� In addition, indicators for vertical and horizontal segregation are included under ‘Equal opportunity and treatment in employment’.

Different types of indicators

�A layered approach to indicators:�Main indicators (M): parsimonious core set of

indicators to monitor progress towards decent work.

�Additional indicators (A): to be used where appropriate, and where data are available.

�Context indicators (C): provide information on the economic and social context for decent work.

�Future indicators (F): currently not feasible, but to be included as data become more widely available.

� Information included under legal framework (L).

Decent Work Indicators and MDG indicators

�Overlap with MDG indicators:�Employment-to-population ratio (M)

�Own-account and contributing family workers as % of total employment (A)

�Working poverty rate (US$1 a day) (M)�Labour productivity growth rate (C)

�MDG indicators and DWI are complementary.�DWI can complement MDG indicators for

monitoring progress on decent work and implementation of Decent Work Country Programmes at the national level.

Grouping of indicators under substantive elements of decent work

�Grouping of indicators under substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda:�Employment opportunities (1 + 2)�Adequate earnings and productive work (1 + 3)

�Decent hours (1 + 3)�Combining work, family and personal life (1 + 3)�Work that should be abolished (1 + 3)

�Stability and security of work (1, 2 + 3)

Note: (1) Rights (2) Employment (3) Social Security (4) Social Dialogue

Grouping of indicators under substantive elements of decent work

�Grouping (continued):�Equal opportunity and treatment in employment

(1, 2 + 3)�Safe work environment (1 + 3)�Social security (1 + 3)�Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’

representation (1 + 4)�Economic and social context for decent work

Note: (1) Rights (2) Employment (3) Social Security (4) Social Dialogue

DWI definitions & interpretation guidance

�Publication of quick reference manual with definitions and interpretation guidance for decent work indicators planned for 2010:� Interpretation is sometimes easy, e.g. the lower

child labour or fatal occupational injuries, the better.� Interpretation is sometimes difficult, e.g. higher

employment-to-population ratio or a lower unemployment rate need not always signal progress (e.g. Zimbabwe).

�Having more than one indicators can corroborate findings.

Using Decent Work Indicators to monitor DWCPs and National Development Plans

�Decent Work Indicators can be used by constituents to monitor and assess progress on decent work at the national level:� Incorporates objectives of the Decent Work Agenda

beyond the employment.�Offers opportunity to compare progress against that

of other countries and to draw policy lessons / provide them to other countries.

�Decent Work Indicators can be used as outcome indicators for DWCPs and NDPs.

Decent Work Indicators for Zambia

�We hope that DWIs are a useful tool for constituents in Zambia. �Report on Regional Seminar in Addis Ababa by

G. Banda and O. Mgemezulu (next session).�Your ideas on how DWIs could be used in Zambia

and what the challenges are (before lunch). �Current DWI availability and links to the Z-DWCP

(after lunch).�Working groups on thematic areas to identify

priority DWIs for Zambia (afternoon & Tuesday).�How can the MAP Project support Zambia? (Tues.)

38

Decent Work Country Profiles

� Presentation of information in decent work country profiles:� Can be adapted to country needs by adding

additional indicators (A) as required.� Long time-horizon (e.g. 1998-2008).� Start with pilot countries from different regions

(Austria, Brazil, Tanzania, Malaysia, Ukraine).� Pending successful pilot phase, the aim is to

compile around 30 country profiles per biennium.

ILO / EC Project ‘Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work’ (MAP)

�Objective is to develop a global methodology to strengthen countries’ capacity to self-monitor progress towards decent work. �Support for DW modules in Labour Force Surveys

& establishment surveys.�Baseline publication and later on a detailed

analytical country studies.�Dissemination of findings among constituents.

�Focus on ten project countries:�Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia, Niger, Peru, Ukraine,

Cambodia, Zambia and two others.

�Part 2: Decent Work Indicators

1. Employment opportunities

�M – Employment-to-population ratio, 15-64 years (S)�Definition: Percentage of working-age population

(15 to 64 years) that is employed according to Resolution by the 13th ICLS (1982) on Economically Active Population.

�Source: LFS, Census.

�Repository: KILM, Laborsta and others.�Substitute indicator: Labour force participation rate.

1. Employment opportunities

�M – Unemployment rate (S)�Definition: Unemployed as % of labour force,

according to Resolution by the 13th ICLS (1982) on Economically Active Population.

�Source: LFS, Census.�Repository: Laborsta, KILM and others.

1. Employment opportunities

�M – Youth not in education and not in employment, 15-24 years (S)�Definition: Sum of unemployed youth (13th ICLS, 1982)

and youth economically inactive for reasons other than education and training, as % of total.

�Source: LFS. �Repository: Partly Laborsta and KILM; others.�Substitute indicator: Youth unemployment rate,

15-24 years.

1. Employment opportunities

�M – Informal employment (S)�Definition: Informal employment as % of total

employment, according to Guidelines concerning a statistical definition of informal employment by the 17th ICLS (2003).

�Source: LFS. �Repository: STAT and KILM.�Substitute indicator: Proportion of own-account and

contributing family workers in total employment (for developing countries; MDG Indicator).

1. Employment opportunities

�Other indicators:A – Labour force participation rate, 15-64 years (S)A – Youth unemployment rate,15-24 years (S)A – Unemployment by level of education (S) A – Employment by status in employment (S) A – Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in

total employment (S)A – Share of wage employment in non-agricultural emp. (S) F – Labour underutilization (S)L – Government commitment to full employmentL – Unemployment insurance

39

2. Adequate earnings and productive work

�M – Working poor (S)�Definition: MDG Indicator based on international

poverty line of $1 and $2; alternatively based on national definition of poverty.

�Source: ILO estimates; national figures based on household surveys.

�Repository: KILM and NSOs.

2. Adequate earnings and productive work

�M – Low pay rate (below 2/3 of median hourly earnings) (S)�Definition: Percentage of all employed persons with

hourly earnings less than 2/3 of median hourly earnings of full-time workers; cf. Resolution on employment-related income by the 16th ICLS (1998).

�Source: LFS and other household surveys. �Repository: OECD, ILO and others.

3. Decent hours

�M – Excessive hours (more than 48 hours per week; ‘usual’ hours) (S)�Definition: Hours usually worked according to

(draft) Resolution by the 18th ICLS (2008); threshold from ILO Convention No. 1 (1919).

�Source: LFS.�Repository: Laborsta and KILM.

3. Decent hours

�Other indicators:A – Usual hours worked (standardized hour bands)

(S) A – Annual hours worked per employed person (S) A – Time-related underemployment rate (S) F – Paid annual leave (developmental work to be

done by the Office; additional indicator) L – Maximum hours of work L – Paid annual leave

4. Combining work, family and personal life

�Currently no main statistical indicator; developmental work to be done on: F – Asocial / unusual hours

F – Maternity protection

�Legal framework currently covers:L – Maternity leave (incl. weeks of leave, replacement

rate and coverage)L (additional) – Paternity and parental leave

5. Work that should be abolished

�M – Child labour (S)�Definition: According to (draft) Resolution on Child

Labour Statistics by the 18th ICLS (2008).�Source: Combined LF and Child Labour surveys;

specialized surveys.

�Repository: ILO-SIMPOC.

5. Work that should be abolished

�Other indicators:A – Hazardous child labour (S)

F – Other worst forms of child labour (S) F – Forced labour (S)L – Child labour (incl. public policies to combat it)

L – Forced labour (incl. public policies to combat it)

6. Stability and security of work

�M – Proportion of employed in precarious types of work (S)� Casual, seasonal and temporary workers, in % of currently

employed population aged 15 and above..

� Source / Repository: various.

� Memo item: Informal employment grouped under employment opportunities.

� Other indicators:A – Number and wages of casual/daily workers (S)

L – Employment protection legislation (incl. notice of termination in weeks)

40

7. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment

�M – Occupational segregation by sex�Definition: Index of Dissimilarity (ID) based on

2-digit ISCO-88 [ISCO-08] data:

�Source: LFS, census.�Repository: Based on Laborsta (SEGREGAT).

7. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment

�M – Female share of employment in ISCO-88 groups 11 and 12�Definition: Employed women in ISCO-88 groups 11

and 12 as % of all employed persons in these groups; measure for vertical segregation.

�Needs to be adapted to ISCO-08. �Alternative: Share in ISCO-88 major group 1.�Source: LFS, census. �Repository: Based on Laborsta (SEGREGAT).

7. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment

�Other indicators:A – Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural

sector A – Gender wage gapA – Indicator for FPRW (Elimination of discrimination in respect of

employment and occupation) to be dev. by the Office A – Measure for discrimination by race / ethnicity / of indigenous

people / of (recent) migrant workers / of rural workers where relevant and available at the national level.

F – Measure of dispersion for sectoral / occupational distribution of (recent) migrant workers

F – Measure for employment of persons with disabilities L – Anti-discrimination law based on sex of worker L – Anti-discrimination law based on race, ethnicity, religion or

national origin

8. Safe work environment

�M – Occupational injury rate, fatal�Definition: Incidence rate in accordance with

Resolution concerning occupational injuries by the 16th ICLS (1998).

�Source: Administrative records, establishment surveys, other.

�Repository: Laborsta.

8. Safe work environment

�Other indicators:A – Occupational injury rate, non-fatal A – Time lost due to occupational injuriesA – Labour inspection (inspectors per 10,000

employed persons)L – Occupational safety and health insurance L – Labour inspection

9. Social security

�M – Share of population aged 65 and above benefiting from a pension (S) �Definition: Population aged 65 years and above

benefiting from pension, as % of total population in age group.

�Source: Household surveys, administrative records. �Repository: ILO-SECSOC.

9. Social security

�M – Public social security expenditure (% of GDP)�Definition: According to Resolution on

social security statistics by the 9th ICLS (1957). �Source: National social security data.

�Repository: Eurostat, OECD, ILO-SECSOC and estimates based on WHO and IMF data.

9. Social security

�Other indicators:A – Health-care exp. not financed out of pocket by private

households A – Share of population covered by (basic) health care provision

(S) F – Share of econ. active pop. contributing to a pension scheme (S)F – Public exp. on needs-based cash income support (% of GDP) F – Beneficiaries of cash income support (% of the poor)F – Sick leave (developmental work to be done by the Office;

additional indicator)L – Pension (public / private)L – Incapacity for work due to sickness / sick leaveL – Incapacity for work due to invalidity

41

10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation

�M – Union density rate (S) �Definition: Adjusted Density Rate (ADR)

�Source: Administrative records and LFS.�Repository: ILO DIALOUGE & STAT.

10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation

�M – Enterprises belonging to employer organization [rate] �Definition: Under development; rate could be

weighted by employment.�Source: Administrative records; establishment

surveys.�Repository: Needs to be built.

10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation

�M – Collective bargaining coverage rate (S)�Definition: Adjusted Coverage Rate (ACR)

� ‘Covered employees’ includes those covered by extension.

�Source: Administrative records.�Repository: ILO DIALOUGE & STAT.

10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation

�M – Indicator for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (FoA and CB)�Definition: Indicator to be developed in line with

ILO Conventions C.87 and C.98. �Source: Mainly based on data gathered by ILO

supervisory system; indicator constructed by the ILO.

�Repository: ILO.

10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation

�Other indicators:A – Strikes and lockouts/rates of days not worked

[interpretation issues] L – Freedom of association and right to organize L – Collective bargaining right L – Tripartite consultations

42

Annex IV. Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia (presentation)

MONITORING AND ASSESSING PROGRESS (MAP) ON DECENT WORK IN ZAMBIA

BY

GRIFFIN K. NYIRONGO

1 Introduction

•This background paper presents an overview of existing programmes, activities and data collection exercises related to decent work in Zambia.

•The study contributes to the identification of decent work indicators that are relevant at the national level.

2 ZDWCP2.1 OVERALL PRESENTATION OF ZDCWP

The priority areas of the ZDWCP job creation for women, young people and people with disabilities; prevention and mitigation of HIV and AIDS in the world of work: and elimination of the worst form of child labour. The DWCP priorities reflect the constituents’priorities and are consist with national development priorities.Poverty reduction and employment creation is a high priority forthe Zambian Government, as reflected in the National Employment and Labour Market Policy (NELMP) and in the title of the Fifth National Development Plan (2006-2010) – “Achieving broad-based wealth and job creation through technological advancement and citizenry participation”.

2.2 COUNTRY CONTEXT DURING DW PROGRAMME DESIGN

•Poverty levels remain high with approximately 67% of Zambians living below the poverty line •Poverty has been exacerbated by the persistently high unemployment levels, and compounded by the HIV and AIDS pandemic whose prevalence is estimated at about 15.6% of the population between the ages of 15-49 years •The GDP growth, which has averaged 5 - 6% annually over the past seven years, has not translated into a commensurate increase in the number of jobs. •80% of the employed is engaged in the informal economy 900,000 children are in child labour in Zambia, primarily in agriculture, forestry and fishery and approximately 780,000 of them in hazardous labour.

•Since it joined the ILO in 1964, Zambia has ratified a total of 43 conventions, of which 39 are currently in force.

• Included among the ratified conventions are all eight core conventions.

•For Decent Work to become a reality in Zambia, it is essential to have the fundamental labour standards in place and operational

•Since it joined the ILO in 1964, Zambia has ratified a total of 43 conventions, of which 39 are currently in force.

• Included among the ratified conventions are all eight core conventions.

•For Decent Work to become a reality in Zambia, it is essential to have the fundamental labour standards in place and operational

43

2.4 DEGREE OF ADVANCEMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME

•Whilst the activities under the Country Programme have multiplied, key structures for an effective implementation of the Country Programme have only being put in place. •The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and an implementation plan (IP) for the Z-DWCP has been completed•The Advisory Committee to provide guidance to the work under the Country Programme has been constituted.

3.TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROJECTS RELATED TO DECENT WORK

•Technical cooperation projects related to Decent Work are mainlyimplemented by the ILO. Other cooperating partners involved in projects related to Decent Work are the EU, World Bank and various United Nations agencies. •The Z-DWCP also contributes to the common objectives of the United Nations system in Zambia through the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) outcomes:

(1) HIV & AIDS, through the DWCP priority II on HIV and AIDS;(2) (2) Basic Social Services, through DWCP priority III on the

Elimination of Child Labour and the cross-cutting priority on Job Quality;

(3) Governance, through all DWCP priorities(4) (4) Food Security, through DWCP priority I on Job Creation and the

cross-cutting priority on Job Quality.

3.1 ILO Projects Related To Decent Work•ILO projects are implemented in the three priority areas of the Z-DWCP, namely: Job Creation (Pillar I), HIV and AIDS at the Workplace

(Pillar II) and Elimination of Child Labour (Pillar III).• Close cooperation with sister UN Agencies exists in all priority areas of the Z-DWCP

3.1.1 Pillar I (Job Creation)I. Broad-Based Wealth and Job Creation Programme (BBW&JC)II. Women’s Entrepreneurship Development and Gender Equality Project

(WEDGE)III. Youth Employment ProjectIV. Projects supporting employment of People with Disabilitiesa) The Project Promoting Decent Work for People with Disabilities

Through a Disability Inclusion Support Service (INCLUDE). b) The Project on Promoting the Employability and Employment of

Persons with Disabilities (PEPDEL).

3.1.2 Pillar II: HIV and AIDS at the Workplace

•Projects under Pillar II have facilitated the establishment of a number of HIV & AIDS workplace policies and programmes during 2007-2008. However, currently there is a major funding gap under this very important priority for Zambia.•Pipeline initiatives under Pillar II include the involvement in the next round of Global Fund initiatives for Zambia

3.1.3 Pillar III: Elimination of Child Labour

i.Time-Bound Programme Support Project (TBP-SP)ii.Tackling Child Labour through Education and Training (TACKLE)

3.1.4 Cross-Cutting

i.Job Quality- The Global Campaign for Social Security for All Project encompasses two broad areas of social security/protection and safety and health at workii.Gender- WEDGE and Women Workers’ Rights

Table 2: Overview of ILO technical cooperation proj ects and linkages to the Decent Work Agenda

3.2 Other Cooperating Partners Projects Related To Decent Work

i.Support for Creative Industries Projectii.UN Joint Programme (ILO, UNICEF and IOM) on Human Trafficking (UNJPT) iii.Bilateral Partners

•Private Sector Development Reform Proramme I (Netherlands, Sweden, DFID, Finland)•Private Sector Development Reform Proramme II (Netherlands, DFID, Finland)•Capacity Building for Private Sector Programme (EU)•Profit Zambia (USAID)

3.3 Government Projects Related To Decent Work i. The Private Sector Development (PSD) Programme ii. Labour Force Survey 2008

3.2 Other Cooperating Partners Projects Related To Decent Work

i.Support for Creative Industries Projectii.UN Joint Programme (ILO, UNICEF and IOM) on Human Trafficking (UNJPT) iii.Bilateral Partners

•Private Sector Development Reform Proramme I (Netherlands, Sweden, DFID, Finland)•Private Sector Development Reform Proramme II (Netherlands, DFID, Finland)•Capacity Building for Private Sector Programme (EU)•Profit Zambia (USAID)

3.3 Government Projects Related To Decent Work i. The Private Sector Development (PSD) Programme ii. Labour Force Survey 2008

4.1.1 Central Statistical Office

4.1.1.1 Living Conditions Monitoring Surveys (LCMS) 4.1.1.2 Labour Force Survey4.1.1.3 Child Labour Survey4.1.1.4 Employment and Earnings Inquiry 4.1.1.5 Consumer Price Index 4.1.1.6 The Census of Population and Housing

4.1.2 Ministry of Labour and Social Security

4.1.3 Ministry of Education

44

4.2 Barriers to Labour Market Information Systems Development in Zambia

•Lack of resources allocated to this activity through the national budget•The limited coverage of most CSO surveys is another limitation posed for designing policy. Most CSO surveys cover formal sector establishments. •Weak link between the demand for the labour market information and the supply side of these labour statistics. •Poor communication between MLSS headquarter and the MLSS field stations.

4.3 Indicators for Monitoring and Assessing Progress on DW

-Table 4: List of statistical indicators for monito ring and assessing progress on decent work

4.4 Indicators of decent work in existing sources o f data-Table 5: Indicators of decent work in existing sou rces of data

4.5 Key FNDP Performance Indicators Measured by DW CP Indicators

4.6 Missing Indicators - Indicators Proposed by MLSS-Decent work indictors not in MLSS LMIS

5 Synopsis and Conclusion-Table 6: Synopsis of Decent Work Country Programmes,

ongoing technical cooperation projects, legalindicators and available statistical decent

work indicators

Annex: Legal framework indicators

Thank you for your attention and God bless

Advisory Committee for the Zambia Decent Work Country ProgrammeILO Office for Malawi, Mozambique and ZambiaILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP)

Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work in Zambia Report of the Special Session of the Advisory Committee for the Z-DWCP

Siavonga, 25 and 26 January 2010

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP)

Monitoring and assessing progress towards decent work is a long-standing concern for the ILO and its constituents. Implemented by the ILO with funding from the European Union, the project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP) helps to address this need. Over a period of four years (2009 to 2013), the project works with Ministries of Labour, National Statistical Offices, other Government agencies, Workers’ and Employers’ organisations and research institutions to strengthen the capacity of developing and transition countries to self-monitor and self-assess progress towards decent work. The project facilitates the identification of Decent Work Indicators in line with national priorities; supports data collection; and assists in the analysis of data on decent work in order to make them relevant for policy makers. The MAP publication series disseminates project outputs to a broad audience in the ten countries covered by the project and beyond.

For more information on the ILO/EC Project “Monitoring and Assessing Progress on Decent Work” (MAP) see http://www.ilo.org/map

Republic of Zambia